Laranjais em Flor

I have to preface the review by saying that I have been a very big Garbo fan ever since I saw her in ANNA KARENINA in which she gives one of the finest and most gripping performances ever captured onscreen. In certain films like GRAND HOTEL she veers too much towards an artificial and contrived style of acting, when she plays certain types of characters like the ballerina there (overdoing and overstating the "prima donna" aspect), but still overall I have always included her in my Top 10 list of Classic Hollywood Actresses.

In this film however - the very first she made in America - she is QUITE DISAPPOINTING on the whole, and no her "beauty" alone cannot save her AT ALL here despite what some apparently think. Her facial expressions are sometimes really bizarre, and as the story progresses, she keeps "breaking out" into the SAME quasi-disdainful, quasi-sardonic kind of LAUGH (during her scenes with one particular central character) which becomes SO REPETITIVE AND INSINCERE as to seem both *AMATEURISH* and *BORING*. Surely either she or the director Monta Bell could have come up with different ways to convey her psychological reactions in all those scenes. It might have worked if this was a farcical kind of comedy PERHAPS, but it is NOT that kind of film.

It is also painfully obvious that she is not really singing AT ALL, especially towards the very beginning, but merely moving her lips with ZERO engagement of her body (which is a vital plot point here considering the fact that her character has operatic aspirations). This was a silent film, so she could have just sung something for real, without worrying about what it would "sound" like. Even Audrey Hepburn looks like she's really singing in MY FAIR LADY, and had clearly observed Marni Nixon closely for some physical verisimilitude.

In fact, for much of the film, Garbo looks like she is JUST FAKING IT. There are of course a few scenes where we see glimpses of what would become a terrific actress IN THE YEARS TO COME, but overall she is shockingly GREEN AND RAW and kind of wrong here. Her hand movements look almost laughable in a few scenes that are supposed to be emotionally climactic, completely undercutting the pathos or poignancy meant to be conveyed in those moments. And in the scenes where she keeps laughing that fake He-Man and Skeletor type of laugh from the old Filmation animations, her character comes across as VERY UNLIKEABLE and UNSYMPATHETIC - to the point where the character that we are SUPPOSED to be against emerges in a much more sympathetic and genuinely human light.

I know Garbo was not exactly a very "human" kind of star/actress, but what we see here is not a Sphinx but rather someone who seems almost MISCAST! I swear that Joan Crawford could have done a vastly better job here, or even Norma Shearer for that matter......Constance Bennett, or most other stars-in-the-making that MGM had. Once again, Garbo's mere "look" CANNOT salvage an epic story like this. I wanted so much to fall in love with her from the time she first appeared onscreen as a peasant girl praying in the garden, but she kept making it ever more difficult. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but by the end of it all, I thought she DESERVED her emotional fate (because of the way she played the role) although that's arguably not what the audience is supposed to feel.

By stark contrast, in ANNA KARENINA almost a decade later, she MADE my heart go out to her even though she was playing a selfish adultereress who walked out on her son. I guess she really really needed TIME and a more genius type of director to bring out the kind of performances that would make her an enduring legend.

All this being said, the REST of the cast is PRACTICALLY PITCH PERFECT!!!!! Everyone else is 1000% committed to their characters, and brings out all the psychological and emotional dimensions of their roles to such a degree that Garbo looks like they cast her ONLY for the way she "looked" and not for any acting capabilities she had at the time. The actress who plays Dona Bernarda acts with a superlative degree of NATURALISM for instance, which makes you feel like you're watching something made decades into the future!!!!! That's just one example. The entire supporting cast WORKS WONDERS to make the story come to life and make you believe the illusion that this is really a Spanish village and not just an MGM production!!

The special effects and the torrent sequence are also *ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT*. I imagine it must have struck the 1926 audience as the TITANIC OF ITS TIME.

Hats off to MGM who did not always do this kind of film.......it really does hold up even a century later EVEN THOUGH the leading lady here shockingly turned out to be the WEAK LINK. I don't blindly "worship" any star, however much I may like and admire them overall, and so I will repeat that Garbo is A DISAPPOINTMENT here as an actress. Doesn't matter what she looked like. I don't watch films to see models on display after all!

But it's a MUST SEE film for all classic film buffs. I had to deduct 4 stars for Garbo's performance but it's a REALLY SOLID film in and of itself.......if it was made today it would doubtless be 2 hours or even 2 and a half hours long because of the story's SHEER SCOPE, but for a silent film, it leaves you wanting more which is actually a good thing. Most silent films of the time spanned 60-70 minutes, and even though this is 90 minutes long, it really does leave you yearning for more story. :) It will make you think a lot about the decisions human beings make, and the way we navigate through the vicissitudes of life.

This mediocre fare would no doubt be forgotten now but for its marking the American debut of an actress who was to become one of MGM's greatest stars and one of Cinema's most consummate artistes. Behind the camera was William Daniels who was to be her favoured cinematographer.

Greta Garbo had hoped that she would be directed by her 'Svengali' and fellow Swede Mauritz Stiller but the film was already earmarked for Monta Bell who had, to his credit, insisted on casting Garbo after chancing to see her film test. Her leading man had very wisely changed his name from Jacob Krantz to Ricardo Cortez and although he acknowledged her 'strange quality' he made it quite clear from the outset that he was a Somebody and she a Nobody. Time of course would prove otherwise.

He is adequate in the role, the character is a drip and there is absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between them. As for Garbo, she is far from being the finished article but it's all there and she is adored by the camera.

She attended the premiere(the first and last time she was to do so) and remarked: "If I can't learn to act, they'll soon tire of me". The rest as they say, is history!

Stiller had coached his protégé privately but considered the film itself poor and although assigned to direct her next picture he was eventually replaced by the talented Fred Niblo. As Garbo's star rose, Stiller's fell. She was again lumbered with Cortez but next stop was 'Flesh and the Devil' opposite John Gilbert. Now there's CHEMISTRY!

I was given the opportunity to see this 1926 film in a magnificently restored theater that was once part of the extensive Paramount chain of vaudeville houses. This Paramount has a ‘Mighty Wurlitzer' organ – also magnificently restored -- that was used to accompany the silent films of the day.

We were fortunate enough to have Dennis James, a key figure in the international revival of silent films at the Mighty Wurlitzer playing appropriate music and thematic compositions fitting to the action on the film. The print was a nearly perfect digital copy of the rapidly decaying nitrate negative and the entire experience was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a silent film as it was meant to be seen.

This was Greta Garbo's first American film. She was only 20 years old but already had 6 Swedish films in her repertoire.

It is somewhat ironic that this is a silent film about an opera star; even though the Mighty Wurlitzer added immensely to the mise-en-scene, it was necessary to leave much to the imagination.

Modern audiences, for the most part, do not understand silent films… Acting was different then, with expansive gestures and broad facial expressions. Therefore audiences laugh at inappropriate times – the acting is seen as ‘hammy' and over-done – but it was simply the style of the period.

Garbo, with all her subtlety, did much to usher in the new age of acting: she could say more with a half-closed eye and volumes could be read into a downward glance or a simple shrug. She exemplifies the truism that `a picture is worth a thousand words.'

Even though this is Garbo's first American film it is pretty obvious the studio knew what they had on their hands: This was MGM filmmaking at its best. The sets and costumes were magnificent. The special effects – which by today's standards are pretty feeble – were still electrifying and amazing.

The script by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (from the novel by Entre Naranjos) would seem to be tailor made for Garbo; it showcases her strengths, magnifies her assets and there is no pesky language problem to deal with: a Swedish actress can play a Spanish temptress with no suspension of disbelief on our part.

Her co-star was MGM's answer to Rudolph Valentino: Ricardo Cortez. He does an admirable job and did something that few romantic stars of the day ever would have done in a film: allow himself to look unnactractive, appear foolish and to grow old ungracefully.

There are some fairly good character parts that are more than adequately acted – especially when you consider the powerhouse that was Garbo. Notable among them are Lucien Littlefield as ‘Cupido' and Martha Mattox as ‘Doña Bernarda Brull.'

This is when the extraordinary cinematographer, William H. Daniels, met Garbo – they went on to make 20 films together. (He was the cinematographer on 157 films and his career spanned five decades!) He was able to capture her ethereal beauty and it was his photography that was primarily responsible for the moniker by which she became known: The Divine Garbo. Without his magnificent abilities she would not have been the success that she was.

Seeing this film is an all-too-rare opportunity: if you ever have the chance, do not miss it.

Greta Garbo has always struck me as a wonderful actresses, very rightly regarded as a screen legend. First saw her in 'Camille' over ten years ago and she captivated and moved me then. She was my main reason in seeing 1926's 'Torrent', most interesting for it being her first American film. It is based upon source material written by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (not read it on a side note), one of the most popularly adapted novelists at the time and also has Ricardo Cortez top billed in one of not many times somebody else was billed above Garbo.

'Torrent' is not one of Greta's best films overall, but it is to me among her best early films and already there are clear signs of what made her such a wonderful actress that would become even more refined with each film. Not every film Garbo did was great, 'Torrent' though is one of them, but bad performances from her were next to rare. Her performance here is a long way from bad, quite the opposite in the best of ways, and a vast majority of her performances were captivating.

My only quibble with 'Torrent' is some histrionic acting in the supporting roles, other than that the film is a winner and quite underrated today.

Visually, the film looks beautiful. The settings are sumptuous and don't look static or claustrophobic and the lighting isn't too dim. The star in this regard though in the cinematography, those close ups of Garbo are more often than not stunning and truly enhance her expressive face. The music implemented doesn't have a tacked on feel and isn't at odds with the tone.

It is sympatheritically directed by Monta Bell, who doesn't try to do too much while not seeming disinterested. The script is thought provoking, flows well and doesn't ramble or sound too flowery. The story is a slight one, but is also very charming and poignant. With the tension being subtly edge of the seat and the romantic element easy to get behind, even with Rafael being an unsympathetic character for much of the film.

Cannot say anything negative about Garbo, who is touching and riveting in even the smaller moments where expressions speak louder than words. Some may find her casting improbable, not to me. Cortez shows early on how good he was in playing unsympathetic characters, though the roles he went on to play were even smarmier and much more villainous. Martha Mattox is suitably formidable in the domineering mother role.

Overall, great. 9/10

Garbo's first two films were adaptations of Ibanez novels. This first, TORRENT, fares much better than the second, THE TEMPTRESS. The latter was overlong and uninteresting, giving Garbo little to do but stand around and look seductive until her last scene, when she is finally allowed to act. Here in TORRENT, she is in total command from beginning to end and as convincing as a Spanish peasant girl, all innocent and loving, as she is portraying a famous diva.

She and Ricardo Cortez are in love but he is a landowner and his mother forbids the alliance, causing the young girl's family to be ousted from their home. The father takes his daughter off to Paris where her trained voice (she had been taking lessons from the local barber) is sure to be a hit. Mother is left behind. Cortez gets his second chance when the famous La Brunna (Garbo) returns to her home to see her mother and entice Cortez yet again. He fails to win her and she leaves. As she is about to depart for America he visits her again but again he fails to have the courage to "break his mother's heart" and marry against her wishes.

The only thing difficult to sustain us through all this is that Garbo still loves him although he is obviously a weak-willed, mother-dominated man. Garbo is radiant and totally believable throughout.

The film holds up well despite some plot problems. Why did the moneyed and successful La Brunna allow her mother to continue to live in poverty as a charwoman? Why is everyone in the home town so dim as to not figure out how La Brunna got her wealth until the confrontation scene where even Garbo's mother rejects her for being "a bad woman?" She does have a wonderful scene when confronted by Cortez, she blames him for her state, since his initial rejection of her led her to her current path for survival.

Despite these bits of unbelievability, this tale of lost love and bittersweet romance plays well. In Garbo's first two films she was paired with "latin" hopefuls, Ricardo Cortez and Antonio Moreno. Neither could hold their own against her, although Cortez is memorable here in the last scenes as an older broken man.

TCM shows a tinted print using four tones (sepia, blue, lavender, red) with a fine orchestral score and sound effects. The new score is by Arthur Barrow. There is some obvious deterioration in some of the title cards. The special effects of a dam breaking during a rain storm and the torrent gaining on two characters in a boat are quite well done. Another dam breaks in THE TEMPTRESS- Ibanez was fond of this device, no doubt.

Garbo wears two wonderful creations - a striped chinchilla outfit and a harlequin outfit. There is a brief kissing scene where Cortez is prone and she takes the active on top position - this was to be repeated in FLESH AND THE DEVIL with John Gilbert.

All in all, this tale of honor, love and the importance of being true to oneself is well done - the double irony at the end is quite poignant.

Recommended for all, not just Garbo fans.