Posts Tagged ‘silent movies’

Woman in the Moon Reviewed

Friday, September 28th, 2007

Briefly, Woman in the Moon (or Frau im Mond) is director Fritz Lang’s 1929 film about space exploration, possibly the first ever to deal with the subject realistically. It was written by Lang from a story by Thea von Harbou (the writer of Lang’s Metropolis), with extensive technical advice and design by Hermann Oberth. The story is alternately (and intentionally) serious and humorous, adventurous and reflective. Moments of terrible gravity are balanced quite effectively by outright comedy routines that give every appearance of having been closely studied by later writers of comedies. Moments of action and suspense are balanced by the emotional battlefield of a love triangle. Everything leads to and follows humanity’s first attempt to send a manned spacecraft to the Moon. Amongst science fiction films that deal with realistic space travel, Woman in the Moon is a pioneering classic.

  • Writing: Good
  • Directing: Great
  • Acting: Good
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Special Effects: Great

Overall Rating: Good

Science Fiction Rank: Great

The Black Pirate Reviewed

Thursday, September 27th, 2007

The Black Pirate, made in 1926, is a pirate fantasy starring and conceived by Douglas Fairbanks Sr. That he had not made a pirate movie earlier in his career seems surprising for the king of the swashbucklers, but once he did, the result was another lavish and explosive epic. It was so lavish, in fact, that it was filmed entirely in Technicolor. It is, indeed, a pirate fantasy, as the extravagant use of Technicolor during the silent era might suggest, for the main characters are nobles, their countries are fictitious, and even the ships are of a design never seen in history. Fairbanks’ costume looks specifically designed for the exploits of an acrobat, though he does not play one, and the legion of soldiers who appear later rowing a galley and leaping into battle more closely resemble guards of the planet Mongo or the Undersea Kingdom in their attire (and martial artists from a kung fu movie in their behavior) than soldiers of any historical period. The story is essentially a fairy tale — an action fairy tale. There is a loyal son vowing revenge for the death of his father, the infiltration of a gang of pirates, impossible deeds done with a sparkling smile, a damsel in distress, love at first sight, more impossible deeds done with a glint in the eye, etc. The story and acting are childish, but intentionally so. The stunts are impressive by any standard except, perhaps, Fairbanks’ own. It is not the greatest pirate movie ever made, but it was certainly not made halfheartedly nor on the cheap.

  • Writing: Poor
  • Directing: Fair
  • Acting: Mediocre
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Stunts: Superb
  • Swordplay: Good
  • Panache: Superb

Overall Rating: Good

Swashbuckling Rank: Great

Robin Hood (Silent Version) Reviewed

Monday, August 21st, 2006

Robin Hood was one of the great swashbuckling epics of its time when it was made in 1922. Its production values are lavish, its scale is huge, and it’s long. In fact, it’s a bit too long. Fifty percent of the film is devoted to the story of Richard the Lion-Hearted (Wallace Beery), the nefarious Prince John (Sam De Grasse), and how the loyal Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks Sr.) just wants to do what is right, but is misunderstood. The story, to put it with merciful brevity, meanders, stalls, and meanders again throughout the first half of the film. The audience is, however, treated with views of truly magnificent sets and impressive pageantry with a cast of hundreds if not thousands. After a seemingly interminable prologue dominated by pomp, evil posturing, and kingly presidings, the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes Robin Hood, fighting for justice in England until King Richard can return from the Crusade and liberate his land from the usurper.

Let us ignore the historical facts concerning King Richard I, his brother John, the Crusades, and England under both rulers for the purpose of this review, for the legends of Robin Hood are themselves steeped in a mythical interpretation of the period.

The film certainly picks up pace during its second half when Robin Hood is “born.” Immediately, there is a spring to its step. I mean that literally. Robin Hood and his Merry Men spring into the scene and spring all throughout the rest of the film, until one thinks one is watching a stage production of Peter Pan. It’s a little too springy for my taste. The stunts are amazing as always whenever Fairbanks is around, and he carries himself as the usual happy-go-lucky god of derring-do, but he and his Merry Men just seem a little too merry. I am not exaggerating this! It sounds like an exaggeration, but there is entirely too much frolicking hither and thither to be taken seriously as a grand adventure. They are simply over-the-top full of merriment. If it were a musical, it would be more appropriate, but it’s a silent film. Don’t misunderstand me; it’s very entertaining, and it’s funny, and I think the humor of it is intentional, but I’m not quite sure.

The DVD includes a short subject by Will Rogers in which he good-naturedly pokes fun at the smash hit film, and his portrayal of the Merry Men rather confirms my description. It is truly hilarious.

Without intending any disrespect to Fairbanks’ work, it is one of his more amusing efforts, and although it is not perfect, its imperfections are admirable qualities in comparison to The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938.

  • Writing: Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Fair
  • Cinematography: Great
  • Stunts: Great
  • Swordplay: Mediocre
  • Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Good

Swashbuckling Rank: Good

The Mark of Zorro (Silent Version) Reviewed

Saturday, August 5th, 2006

The Mark of Zorro from 1920 is one of the great film classics of the swashbuckling genre, starring that immortal master of derring-do on the silver screen, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. The caballero Don Diego Vega, newly returned to California from Spain, is forced to disguise both his competence and his opposition to the oppressive rule of the new Alcalde in order to avoid offending his father who will not tolerate criminal behavior, and also to protect his family from retribution. As this deceptive Don Diego, Fairbanks humorously plays the snobbish, lazy fop who is bored by everything around him and finds all activities to be tiresome except when it comes to displaying his skill at sleight-of-hand. As his alter ego Zorro, however, he presents us with the iconic figure of the heroic vigilante who inspires terror in his enemies and hope in the hearts of the downtrodden. He can be menacing, as when he emerges from the shadows in the midst of his enemies, wreathed in the smoke of his cigar like a devil from Hell. He can be charming, as when he wins the heart of the beautiful Lolita Pulido (played by Marguerite De La Motte). And he can be astonishing, as when he leaps from rooftop to rooftop and over obstacles as if he could ignore gravity at will. Fairbanks, as his fans know, did all of his own stunts, and he made them all seem simultaneously easy (to him) and impossible (for everyone else). Truly, his feats of agility are jawdropping, and if the film had no other merits whatsoever, his combination of panache and superhuman stuntwork alone would make it immortal.

  • Writing: Mediocre Fair
  • Directing: Good
  • Acting: Fair
  • Cinematography: Good
  • Stunts: Superb
  • Swordplay: Good
  • Panache: Superb

Overall Rating: Good

Swashbuckling Rank: Legendary

Ben Hur (Silent Version) Reviewed

Friday, July 14th, 2006

Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ, released in 1925, is truly an epic work of filmmaking. It had a cast of thousands (reputedly 125,000), a budget of almost $4 million (a phenomenal sum in the 1920s), and includes the most edited scene in the history of cinema (see the trivia notes at IMDb.com).

Seeing is believing. The script called for a sea battle, so what did the filmmakers do? They staged a sea battle. With actual triremes. (And actual combatants, for that matter — see the trivia notes.) When the script called for a chariot race, they staged a real chariot race (with a bonus offered to the winning driver). When city walls are shown collapsing, one could almost believe hundreds of extras actually perished in special effects that rival the most expensive computer-generated graphics of today’s blockbusters. They even filmed the religious scenes in Technicolor at a time when most films relied on mere tinting.

The film is, quite simply, stunning in its scope and its effects. It is monumental in a way that far surpasses the likes of Cleopatra, Troy, or Alexander the Great. Watching it is like taking a journey, marvelling all the while, and looking back in amazement at its completion. It is the quintessential epic.

I do not mean to suggest that the movie is perfect. The acting is mostly adequate, although it is consistently good on the part of several actors, whilst others fall back a trifle too much on pantomime. The directing sometimes appears lazy, yet at other times rises to levels of titanic achievement. I have not read the novel on which the movie was based, so I am unable to judge the faithfulness of the adaptation, but the screenplay seems pedestrian at some points, but inspired at others. I find the story’s lack of reliance on sterotypes to be especially interesting and one of the things that makes this movie an enduring classic, regardless of one’s religion. It is a cinematic wonder of the world, despite its flaws, and deserves to be seen.

  • Writing: Fair
  • Directing: Great
  • Acting: Fair
  • Cinematography: Great
  • Special Effects: Superb

Overall Rating: Great

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans Reviewed

Thursday, May 4th, 2006

On Sunday night/Saturday morning I watched F.W. Murnau’s 1927 silent film, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. I never know what to expect from him. His Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens from 1922 (otherwise known simply as Nosferatu) still stands as the greatest vampire movie ever made (followed by the ingenious fictional movie about the movie, Shadow of the Vampire, from 2000), whereas his Phantom from the same year (apart from a single brief scene with spectacular visual effects) stands as one of the most agonizingly dull and woodenly acted movies I have ever endured.

Sunrise is notable for being the first and only recipient of the Academy Award for Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production. In addition, it won for Best Cinematography, and Janet Gaynor won Best Actress in a Leading Role for playing The Wife. It certainly was unique, and I am a little surprised its style of storytelling wasn’t more influential. It had a fairy tale quality balanced by the little details of mannerisms and personality quirks that I think lent itself well to the medium. Initially, I was skeptical of the plot as it was presented, with its fidelity versus infidelity and rural versus urban themes, but as it progressed, I couldn’t help being drawn into the plot beyond the parable and, more importantly, the characters and their plight. The characters are more complex than one would guess at first glance, and at the same time serve as powerful allegorical symbols. It is not without its controversial elements, some of which I still find troubling, and I wouldn’t say the film is flawless, but it is worth watching for its directing, its impressive visual effects, and some good performances. Janet Gaynor, in particular, is outstanding.