Genuine

I caught this years back at the Paris Cinematheque hoping to find something of interest from the director of Caligari. It was a disappointment in just about every way for me. First, the film at its original length seemed to go on forever. The elements were there, granted, but they didn't combine as they did in the previous film. I had the feeling of watching a film that was going through all the necessary steps but missing all the points. It was more an exercise in style which blindly followed all the guidelines but missed going anywhere. On the other hand, and perhaps unfairly to subsequent films, "Caligari" was a one-of-a-kinder that left no space for a sequel. Period.

Curtis Stotlar

FYI, there is a longer 89 minute version with French intertitles. The story is allowed to develop much better, it's worth seeking out.

The same director, cinematographer and writer of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" made this subsequent picture, "Genuine". Likewise, it is also an Expressionist film (one of the few made during Weimar Germany, contrary to what Lotte Eisner and the use by some of "expressionism" as an umbrella term for almost all German cinema of the period might suggest). Additionally, similar to "Caligari", the main body of "Genuine" is framed as a dream. Yet, I wasn't engulfed into the universe of it as I was with "Caligari".

The story, although just as peculiar, isn't as involving, which is unfortunately probably, in part, because the Kino release is only a condensed version. The framing of scenes is just as prosaic and theatrical as that in "Caligari"--if not more so. As well, the stylized acting seems more overdone and obtrusive this time. But, more importantly, the problem is the sets, which I can't see the entire version improving much upon. The Expressionist set designs are equally strange, with odd angels and geometric shapes. The production, however, leaves too much space open and unfilled, which is the largest reason that "Genuine" isn't as involving, or captivating, as "Caligari".

...yes, it's from the same director, Robert Wiene, whose landmark THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI was released earlier the very same year, 1920; and, yes, much of the same cinematic technique created for CALIGARI was used here as well. The main differences between the two utterly defeat any chance that GENUINE, at least in the 43-minute "condensation" that appears on the 2002 Kino DVD release, would ever be a tenth as watchable as CALIGARI (or, for that matter, THE HEARTS OF AGE, Orson Welles' self-described "amusement" that spoofed all the surrealist silent European cinema concocted by Wiene, F.W. Murnau, Salvador Dali and the like). First, the sets and makeup of the players are not as flamboyantly odd this time around. Second, the pacing is far too slow for the story. Third, the story is itself far too bizarre and convoluted for a casual viewer to find any interest in; CALIGARI's is relatively straightforward in comparison. If you want a pre-NOSFERATU take on vampires, track down the DVD of LES VAMPIRES instead...

I've just viewed the Image DVD of CALIGARI, with commentary by Mike Budd. This DVD also includes excerpts from GENUINE. While the snippets included are pretty strange and disconnected, they show a major similarity between the two films -- that is, the "frame" structure of the story. CALIGARI's frame is that it is a story told by a madman. In GENUINE, it appears that the story is a "dream" experienced by a young man who has fallen asleep reading his favorite novel. What I saw of GENUINE makes it seem the young man's favorite author was Sacher-Masoch. See also how Genuine messes up the young man's hair in a rush of passion -- shades of John Barrymore's transition scenes from DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE?