O Estudante de Praga

At the least, remakes should allow an opportunity to see the differences in film-making from different periods, and, hopefully, to see the advances made in the years bypast; at best, it displays something new and intelligent to a familiar story. The 1913 version of "The Student of Prague" was a film meant to bring respectability to cinema by adapting popular literature; however, the filmmakers lacked an understanding of their own medium and created a, for then, typically static motion picture. Henrik Galeen made this remake during the maturity of one of the greatest periods of national cinema in the history of the art form.

Obviously, close-ups and medium shots were common by 1926, where there were none in the aforementioned film of 1913. There's scene dissection, some inspired cinematography and editing and expressionistic sets by Hermann Warm, as well. We actually get to see the actors here, and Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss do exceptionally well. The gypsy storyline fits into this version easily.

Cinematographers Günther Krampf and Erich Nitzschmann produced a large shadow of the Devil, which interacts with mass, in one shot; superimpose a saw cutting at Balduin's head in a moment of internal narration; shake the camera for a drunk POV shot; use irises and move the camera during close-ups. The rescue from a horse scene and the haunting finale are the most impressive visually, for the chiaroscuro lighting, special effects and editing. Some shots even seem intentionally reminiscent of the 1913 version. Additionally, the filmmakers were able to punctuate the mirror motif within this film of the doppelgänger thanks to state-of-the-art effects.

You never know what you'll come up with when you go bottom-fishing in the budget bins at Tower Video. Last week, for 6 bucks, I scored a movie I'd been questing a long time. It's the silent German chiller, "The Student of Prague." So what if the print (from an outfit called Alpha Video) is scratchy, fuzzy, and discolored, and if the contrast is so poor at times that I wasn't sure which character I was watching. Hey -- life isn't always a Criterion disc. At least it didn't cost me $40, and at least I finally got to see this movie. It's a gem, and it should be much, much better known. It tells the Mephistophelean tale of a university student named Balduin (the great Conrad Veidt), a dashing fellow and the best fencer in Prague. Unfortunately, he's also penniless, which puts him out of the running for the hand of the beautiful countess with whom he has become smitten. This makes him an easy mark for the Devil, who arrives in Prague one day in the guise of a mysterious stranger named Scapinelli. Scapinelli offers Balduin the astounding sum of 600,000 gold pieces, with only one string attached: Scapinelli gets to take whatever item he wants from Balduin's room. Balduin, glancing around his spartan crib, recognizes that it's filled with nothing but worthless junk. In short, the deal seems to be a no-brainer, and Balduin hastens for the dotted line. No sooner does Scapinelli hand over the dough than he announces which item he wants: it's Balduin's reflection in the mirror. And, in an amazing scene, he calls it forth. The special effects are primitive, of course, yet smashing. The rest of the movie is basically a series of confrontations between Balduin and the unleashed reflection, which has transmuted into a malicious doppelgänger. I won't reveal the final confrontation, which is astounding, both dramatically and cinematic ally, but it's not a spoiler to reveal Balduin's epitaph (which is revealed at the fade-in before the story is told in flashback): "This monument is dedicated to Balduin, the best fencer in Prague. He gambled with Evil and lost….Adieu, Balduin."

The only things I know about director Henrik Galeen are that he directed "The Golem" and wrote "Nosferatu." But I am willing to maintain that he was a movie genius of the first order. His work is full of wonderful expressionistic flourishes, reminiscent of "Caligari," which is probably not surprising since the two movies share the same production designer, Hermann War (they also share Veidt of course). The movie's highlights are unforgettably effective, including the fantastic moment when Scapinelli's giant shadow snatches a love letter that Balduin has sent to the countess. In another scene, Galeen uses a shaky hand-held camera for a drunken POV shot. There's also a neat bit of foreshadowing in an early scene in which Balduin fences with himself in the mirror. I noticed some other shots that anticipated future movies:

o A long shot of Scapinelli, in silhouette, alone on a hilltop next to a solitary tree, vowing revenge ("Gone With the Wind") o A fox hunt captured through hand-held cameras and jerky editing ("Tom Jones") o A lovelorn girl sublimates her unrequited feelings for a guy by secretly cleaning his apartment ("Chungking Express") – and get a load of the way she fondles his saber! YOW!

Either these shots are coincidences, or "The Student of Prague" was far more influential than is generally known.

Well, now that I have finally bagged "The Student of Prague," I can turn my quest to two other objects: (1) a decent print of it (preferably in a theatrical screening); and (2) the original 1913 movie, of which this 1926 version is just a johnny-come-lately remake.

I have watched a lot of silent films in my life (love the genre) and I must say in a lot of ways this film blew me away more than most. I love Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu and Metropolis, but this film snuck up on me in a way I didn't expect that none of those films did. It was scary. Scarier than Nosferatu. I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. It's also beautiful. Some scenes, like Werner Krauss on the Mountaintop, are riveting. It starts out almost as a joke with the tombstone, but that tombstone later becomes a slap in the face. Conrad Veidt is always good, but here he is so painfully and chillingly aware of his huge mistake every time he looks in the mirror and it shows so well. He seems to find one thing in each movie that will make him unforgettable. I wanted to rewind the student's life as the horror set in. I am sure this movie influenced many film noir directors with the cinematography. I could see the future of film here and I will definitely watch it again.

Student of Prague, The (1926)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

German horror/drama is a remake of the 1914 version, which was the first German horror film. A poor college student (Conrad Veidt) falls in love with a rich girl but knows he'll never get her due to his poorness. Then enters Scapinelli (Werner Krauss), a strange man who offers the student 600,000 gold pieces in return for something from the students room. The student agrees but is shocked when the man takes his soul. Outside the good performances by Veidt and Krauss, this film really doesn't add too much that the 1914 film didn't do better. This film here runs fifty-minutes longer but the tiresome pace doesn't help matters and even the special effects were better done in the previous version.

I loved the original 'Der Student von Prag', made in 1913, so obviously I could not resist this remake. The version I watched is the one restored on behalf of the Munich Film Archive. It is almost 2 hours 15 minutes long and has been re-tinted, and the music has been re-recorded if it is not altogether new. All in all the remake is not bad. It has some advantages over the original. Thus, the acting is better throughout, with Conrad Veidt as Balduin and Elizza La Porta as Lyduschka being outstanding. Veidt does much better than Paul Wegener in the 1913-version, and Lyduschka's role has been expanded to such an extent that La Porta had a real chance to show off her talent. The film was her breakthrough perfomance. The scene with the reflection Scapinelli (Werner Krauß) takes from the mirror in Balduin's room is just as as good as in the original, and so is the final scene. Werner Krauß' acting is very good, too. On the downside: The remake is long and the plot does occasionally drag. I also found Veidt looks far too mature to play a student (but that goes for Wegener in the original, too). The tinting. I realise the film was originally shown tinted, but what in other pictures is a beautiful amber here looks like a garish yellow. I disliked the pink used for all interior scenes, too. And finally, the storyline follows that of the original so closely that there are few surprises. All in all, the 1926-version is a competently made film but it is less innovative and exciting than the 1913 'Student'. I am therefore rating it a little lower.