La reine Élisabeth

Perhaps Sarah Bernhardt was a great theatre actress, but she was an awful film actress. As ignorant are the filmmakers who made this rubbish. Of course, the idea behind these productions from Adolph Zukor's Famous Players in Famous Plays, Pathé film d'art, or spectacles from Italy was to associate the new medium of film with the established art of theatre (often literature, too). The only decent legacy these films have is that they ushered in the age of feature-length films, but stagnating motion pictures to the grammar of the stage was of more consequence. The camera is stationary, the narrative is ridiculous and the acting is artificial and pretentious.

(Note: The version I saw was approximately 50 minutes and appeared to be at proper projection speed.)

Paramount Pictures, one of the oldest movie studios in the world today, got its embryonic beginnings when Adolph Zukor, who immigrated from Austria-Hungary in the late 1800's, became involved with motion picture houses in 1903. A cousin asked the fairly wealthy furrier to invest in a vaudeville/movie theater he wanted to buy. Zukor eventually grew his cousin's business and sold his successful theater chain to Loews several years later. With profits in his pocket, he had an intuitive feeling through observations that movie audiences wanted to see big-name stage stars in longer films than the short 15-minute movies nickelodeons were offering.

In May 1912, Zukor and two very rich New York City theater owners formed the Famous Players Film Company. They eyed a movie in current production in France starring the stage legend Sarah Bernhardt. The French Studio making the film, "Queen Elizabeth," was about to declare bankruptcy and stop production when Zukor stepped in and funded the rest of the movie.

Zukor's company premiered the 53-minute film on July 12, 1912, in New York City. Audiences were enthralled with the long movie, reassuring Zukor's opinion people could sit through an hour-length film. He subsequently released "Queen Elizabeth" in several cities to packed theaters, whose audiences paid primarily to see the stage great Bernhardt on the big screen. The wealthy Zukor, under the Famous Players Film Company, then focused on big stage stars to produce feature films.

Today's audiences who view even a couple of minutes of "Queen Elizabeth" will wonder what all the hoopla was all about. In the midst of the young American directors coming up with new camera angles and creative plots, this French movie is a throwback to the films a few years before that contains a static camera basically recording a play--without sound. But "Queen Elizabeth," in the tradition of French d'Art, kicked off a tradition of high-brow feature films which changed the movie industry.

This film is a curiosity. I saw a snippet of it in an exhibition on Sarah Bernhardt and was glad that the whole story was captured on film. The movie is actually the filming of a play, or that's what it looks like, and in that respect it is more 19th Century than 20th, as it shows the acting style of the theater, with no real adaptation at all to the range and variety of film. There are no closeups, for example. No doubt, it could have been much better directed, even at that time there was already a lot more talented work around that would make this material look old fashioned. The attraction here is to see the great Sarah. She is indeed a strong presence, and we perceive she is quite accustomed to being at the center of attention, but we don't at all get a sense of what made her the great actress-legend that she was. I have heard recordings of hers and I understand that the declamation (as taught in the Comedy Française) was a great part of her appeal, which of course we don't get on a silent film. Here her 19th Century interpretation of the Renaissance Queen is very grand, her costume and crown very similar to the ones she used to score one of her greatest theatrical triumphs as the queen in Victor Hugo's "Ruy Blas". Her gesturing is very over-the top Diva, which certainly matches the image of her legend. The surprise is the strong performance of Robert Devereux, who looks very attractive, virile and decisive in the role, though not particularly expressive. Her death scene is based on historical fact, as the Queen refused to go to bed during her last days and slept on cushions in the floor. However the death itself was more comical than tragic. I think this has largely to do with the fact that what looks good on theater does not necessarily translate well in the camera, specially a steady, primitive camera that is merely recording and not actively integrated in filming. As a curiosity though, and as a record of 19th Century style, aesthetics and theater, it is a unique testimonial and we are lucky that it has survived. As a precursor in the creation of "star' image, and the development of modern iconography of glamor, Sarah also holds a special place. Her identity as an iconic emblem of Parisian Belle Epoque is part of her legend and it also served as inspiration for the paraphernalia, wardrobe and decor surrounding early movie divas, such as Theda Bara and Gloria Swanson, all of which ultimately influenced the aesthetics of kitsch and the appreciation of camp in later generations.

This is a curio, a filmed play which is silent, but retains Miss Bernhardt's bow at the end, a film which tells you what is going to happen in the scene before it does (in case you didn't get it), and which takes enormous liberties with fact as historical films always do. This is the story of Elizabeth and Essex, so those of us who are familiar with Davis and Flynn and their version can have some fun drawing comparisons ... it's not without its unintentionally amusing moments (just how, when Elizabeth visits Essex's body after his execution, has his head been put back on his body without leaving a scar, and why, when Elizabeth dies, does she fall on some conveniently placed cushions?) but these aside its an entertaining 40 minutes, well acted by all concerned and not as stilted as I thought it might be. Miss Bernhardt comes across as something special even in silence and something is better than nothing. If you like silents and can give old ones a chance, you'll probably like this. The picture quality wasn't great on the copy I saw but it is nearly 90 so I think we can make allowances ... one I'll happily watch again.

This film was a struggle. I had to keep myself from shutting it off and doing something else. I don't think I've ever been this bored for forty minutes, not even while listening to dry lectures in algebra class.

I'm grateful that we have the legendary Bernhardt captured on film for all time, but it's unfortunate that she was not paired with adequate filmmakers who understood how to make engaging cinema. The movie is literally a recording of a stage play, all done in long shot with the actors playing for the back row. Peppered throughout are intertitles which explain exactly what's going to happen in the next scene.

The fact that this film was made in 1912 is no excuse; watch the one reeler An Unseen Enemy from the same year and you can see that film is shot and acted much better than this. Perhaps if the likes of DW Griffith had directed, this might have been a classic. Instead we're left with a movie which only functions as a historical curio and nothing more.