2 recensioni
I have had a particular interest in this film since I saw HITLER'S HOLLYWOOD in April of 2018. I was intrigued by this movie's purported anti-Nazi sentiment as approved by Goebbels. The hypothesis offered was that the Evil Genius of Cinema -- worse than Louis B. Mayer, possibly the equal of Walt Disney -- had permitted its release as a sop to the intelligentsia. This seemed unlikely to me. If it was an anti-Nazi film, was it permitted, or did it slip by Goebbels' eagle-eyed omniscience? Or might it be something else, entirely?
I have tested this hypothesis in the only rational way I know. I have looked at the evidence of the film. I think the hypothesis, as asserted as fact in HITLER'S HOLLYWOOD, is false. I think it is something else entirely.
Werner Krauss is Paracelsus, a man whose enemy is death. He meets his foe on the battlefield of the human body in sickness. His foe is assisted by the forces of the Establishment: the rich, seeking ever more riches through monopolies on the latest panacea, the medical colleges, who think that all knowledge of health is contained in Galen and Avicenna. He struggles, and has his victories, and failures, only to rise again, fighting plague, stupidity, cupidity, and vanity, all in the context of 16th Century Germany.
It is, in short, an entertaining medical biopic in fancy dress. That made me think about other medical biopics, like MADAME CURIE, but more especially, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, in which Paul Muni portrays the hero -- in a beard; Muni was a sucker for any role which had him wear a beard -- who fights his battle against the medical Establishment of 19th Century France, with his only goal the health and well-being of the people.
Hm. Given that, the simplest conclusion is that here was a proven formula with a German twist.
Is there a political or social message in it, other than we should trust the evidence of our eyes, and the success of testing theories against facts? I think there is such a message here: that the enemy of the poor and weak and ill are the rich and powerful. A rich man lets the plague into the city in hopes of more riches. The powerful medical establishment opposes Paracelsus to maintain its power and weath. Paracelsus' only allies are the young, the poor, and the sick.
Well, the rich and powerful we always have with us. They will always strive to maintain and engorge themselves. Truth, however, remains truth. Is that such a radical thought? Is this such a radical movie?
I have tested this hypothesis in the only rational way I know. I have looked at the evidence of the film. I think the hypothesis, as asserted as fact in HITLER'S HOLLYWOOD, is false. I think it is something else entirely.
Werner Krauss is Paracelsus, a man whose enemy is death. He meets his foe on the battlefield of the human body in sickness. His foe is assisted by the forces of the Establishment: the rich, seeking ever more riches through monopolies on the latest panacea, the medical colleges, who think that all knowledge of health is contained in Galen and Avicenna. He struggles, and has his victories, and failures, only to rise again, fighting plague, stupidity, cupidity, and vanity, all in the context of 16th Century Germany.
It is, in short, an entertaining medical biopic in fancy dress. That made me think about other medical biopics, like MADAME CURIE, but more especially, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, in which Paul Muni portrays the hero -- in a beard; Muni was a sucker for any role which had him wear a beard -- who fights his battle against the medical Establishment of 19th Century France, with his only goal the health and well-being of the people.
Hm. Given that, the simplest conclusion is that here was a proven formula with a German twist.
Is there a political or social message in it, other than we should trust the evidence of our eyes, and the success of testing theories against facts? I think there is such a message here: that the enemy of the poor and weak and ill are the rich and powerful. A rich man lets the plague into the city in hopes of more riches. The powerful medical establishment opposes Paracelsus to maintain its power and weath. Paracelsus' only allies are the young, the poor, and the sick.
Well, the rich and powerful we always have with us. They will always strive to maintain and engorge themselves. Truth, however, remains truth. Is that such a radical thought? Is this such a radical movie?
G. W. (PANDORA'S BOX) Pabst's celebratory film about the "revolutionary" 16th century German philosopher/doctor (known as Paracelsus and actually born in Switzerland) holds more than just historical interest as a Nazi approved subject. Though Pabst's sound films never achieved the prominence of his silent work, this is a well produced biopic with real surprises, especially when Paracelsus gives credit to Gypsy (!) folk remedies or when an Expressionist dance number symbolizes the entry of the plague (St. Vitus' Dance) into the closed town. Suddenly we're in Powell/Pressburger territory. Often obvious and slow, but certainly worth investigation, and not all that different from similar Hollywood produced biopics on ZOLA and LOUIS PASTEUR by director William (Wilhelm) Dieterle, a former colleague from Pabst's early UFA days. In fact, Dieterle's 1939 HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME has many visual and thematic similarities. The romantic subplot, straight out of Die Meistersinger, only adds to the usual discomfort of watching a Goebbels approved Nazi era production.