Nobreza

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

Not to go into Tim Robbins mode from The Player, but think of this film as Downstairs (1932) meets He Who Gets Slapped (1924) meets The Last Command (1928). It blends class differences, the pain of humiliation, and the Russian Revolution into a bit of a mess, but it's a mess with Lon Chaney, who I always find mesmerizing. Here he plays a Russian peasant, and opposite him is beautiful Barbara Bedford, who more than keeps up with him as an aristocrat. During the civil war he protects her out in the country (how she ever managed to get in this position isn't explained), taking a whipping to conceal her identify which even he doesn't fully know. She's rescued and they're brought to her manor, where he expects her to live up to her promise to be his friend forever, but she simply offers him a servant's job and makes it clear that he's of a different class. In addition to being disillusioned, he endures the pain of being yelled at and called an idiot by the older lady of the house.

I wish I could say this film is some grand metaphor for the Revolution, with the peasant becoming woke to the hypocrisy of the ruling class and turning on them. It briefly has those overtones, when another servant tells him "You fool! You take a beating because an aristocrat promises you something? Do you think those upstairs pigs ever keep their promises to us downstairs?" The servants in the house look forward to the fall of the aristocracy, and have a little revolution of their own in the kitchen, ignoring the bell ringing for service and getting drunk. It's a situation where everyone seems repelling - the aristocracy for living off the vast wealth inequality (with the couple in this house also being war profiteers), as well as the marauding revolutionaries and peasants, who on three different occasions in the film look to rape Bedford's character. In one of the better scenes, one with real menace, it's Chaney's character who does this, and she repels him with the heel of her hand pushed up under his chin with all of her strength (which looked rather painful to Chaney).

The film could have gone to some pretty dark places or made an actual statement, but unfortunately it cops out on all fronts. There is a romantic angle (with Ricardo Cortez) which might have worked had the guy come back and killed the peasant, or vice versa, but the film instead wants both of them to be heroes, opting for a contrived and unsatisfactory ending. Despite that, I liked Chaney and Bedford enough to enjoy seeing this film, especially since it moved along pretty well over its 70-minute runtime.

It's the chaos of the Russian revolution. Countess Tatiana Alexandrova (Barbara Bedford) is alone and on foot, desperate to get to Novokursk. She encounters peasant Sergei (Lon Chaney) who is picking over the corpses of dead soldiers. She hires him as her guide and promises to be his friend upon arrival. They pretend to be a married couple when they run into revolutionaries.

This is a fascinating exposition of the Russian revolution. Neither side is right. In a way, I am a little disappointed with some of Alexandrova's actions, but it is very much indicative of the society in general. At last, there is no satisfying ending and there isn't one in the real world. I probably would have ended the movie before the final fight.

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.