It felt like a long boring film packed with stereotypes at first, especially up to the point where two women were trying to seduce the fat and vulgar butcher in order to get their hands on some precious meat for their family, but Joyless Street turned out to be yet another, shall we say, hidden, gem, where one is never really quite sure where it is leading up to.
It is a moral film, no doubt, and sometimes it even feels too much on that side. But from the moment where 'Miss Greta' walked out of her job in defense of her morality it became, it seems, more engaging. Somehow, the human tragedy began to draw you to the character when such a sad and fragile woman had to carry on her frail shoulders the heavy burden of the whole family, her invalid father on one side, and her little sister on the other.
I didn't realise Miss Greta was played by the screen icon of the namesake until she was well down her road to 'moral ruin'. Though it was only her second starring role, the qualities that made her such an incredible presence on screen was already in full bloom: her eyes seem to say thousands when she remained silent, and they had the power to empathise with her character.
The archive says that up to 90 minutes materials are still lost, and I could not imagine how long the film had been!
Showing posts with label Silent movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silent movie. Show all posts
May 10, 2010
January 25, 2010
Lucky star
I had ever come across the name Frank Borzage. Not before last Saturday when I put Lucky Star on my DVD player. Half way through, I wanted to know everything about him and those who star in it, in particular, the sublime Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor.
It is a usual story, but you won't allowed to find out about it till the finale. Instead, you are gripped by the pace of storytelling and the convincing performance by everybody, especially Charles who played the crippled veteran and Janet in the role of a character bordering 'girl' and young woman. Those scenes where Charles ignited the screen were some of the most memorable ones, and his great versatility proved expressing a good range of emotions within a single shot frame. And those legs when he was struggling to get up and walk, they did look lifeless and dead.
Frank Borzage was claimed a master of cinema. Lucky Star proves the case.
The history of cinema is being rewritten all the time. I mean what if Lucky Star remained 'missing' - as it was believed to be before the original silent version was discovered and restored in Netherland in 1992?
I have to admit though that I was not that impressed by Liliom, also staring Charles Farrell, although I do like the actress who played Julie.
It is a usual story, but you won't allowed to find out about it till the finale. Instead, you are gripped by the pace of storytelling and the convincing performance by everybody, especially Charles who played the crippled veteran and Janet in the role of a character bordering 'girl' and young woman. Those scenes where Charles ignited the screen were some of the most memorable ones, and his great versatility proved expressing a good range of emotions within a single shot frame. And those legs when he was struggling to get up and walk, they did look lifeless and dead.
Frank Borzage was claimed a master of cinema. Lucky Star proves the case.
The history of cinema is being rewritten all the time. I mean what if Lucky Star remained 'missing' - as it was believed to be before the original silent version was discovered and restored in Netherland in 1992?
I have to admit though that I was not that impressed by Liliom, also staring Charles Farrell, although I do like the actress who played Julie.
October 07, 2009
Judex
I cannot believe what I have just done: to watch yet another multi-episodes film from Louis Feuillade.
Made in 1917, Judex still has all the rough edges and chaotic excitements of his last two, but lessons have been learnt, especially in tightening the narrative. The result? A much more satisfactory experience in that the structure and devices resemble those of the contemporary ones and the plots are certainly more logical and tight.
The Louis Feuillade seemed a true pioneer: if Fantomas is a thriller which refuses to settle on who is the monster Fantomas; Les Vampires launching a new genre that continue to inspire many; then Judex is one that pioneers the Superhero genre. And of course like all his works, it also gives us fascinating insight into the taste and fashion of its day.
It lasts for 5.5 hours, but there is not a bored moment.
Made in 1917, Judex still has all the rough edges and chaotic excitements of his last two, but lessons have been learnt, especially in tightening the narrative. The result? A much more satisfactory experience in that the structure and devices resemble those of the contemporary ones and the plots are certainly more logical and tight.
The Louis Feuillade seemed a true pioneer: if Fantomas is a thriller which refuses to settle on who is the monster Fantomas; Les Vampires launching a new genre that continue to inspire many; then Judex is one that pioneers the Superhero genre. And of course like all his works, it also gives us fascinating insight into the taste and fashion of its day.
It lasts for 5.5 hours, but there is not a bored moment.
September 14, 2009
Fantomas
Another series of film that lasts for 5.5 hours by Louis Feuillade, made a year or two earlier than Les Vampires. Though the plots were even more 'naive', and at times even more nonsensical than Les Vampires, the tone is considerably lighter and it is more fun to watch.
I was intrigued mostly by the scenes which seemed to be taken in location and therefore provided a lot of historical insights not just in interior design, architeture, but also the way of living in pre-war France. The series also involved the police and a resourceful journalist, but unlike Les Vampires, the focus is more on the police. Again, the police or even the justice system was depicted as quite hopeless and was always outwitted by the criminals!
Interestingly, althought the series was made earier than Les Vampires, the performance was more contemporary in that the actors (or at least in the first of the five episodes) did not make it a point to stare at the camera and mouth their thoughts to the audience.
Fascinating watch!
I was intrigued mostly by the scenes which seemed to be taken in location and therefore provided a lot of historical insights not just in interior design, architeture, but also the way of living in pre-war France. The series also involved the police and a resourceful journalist, but unlike Les Vampires, the focus is more on the police. Again, the police or even the justice system was depicted as quite hopeless and was always outwitted by the criminals!
Interestingly, althought the series was made earier than Les Vampires, the performance was more contemporary in that the actors (or at least in the first of the five episodes) did not make it a point to stare at the camera and mouth their thoughts to the audience.
Fascinating watch!
August 31, 2009
Les vampires
I watched this 336 minutes long film over three days. This 'legendary' silent thriller by Louis Feuillade is more like a historical document that serves to remind us how conventions, technologies, and tastes have evolved and changed ever since the first of ten episodes was made in 1915.
'Popular' with its contemporary audience, I am sure even a toddler today can spot some of the cracks in the plots. It was also obvious that the technologies of the mid-1910s would not allow shooting in dim light, and therefore all the street scenes at night are identical to those of the day time, making it sometimes rather confusing (even in this rather simple plot story) to follow the sequences of events. The actors, male or female, young or old, all seem extremely athletic and were capable of climing up the walls like a monkey on a tree! In terms of performance, it was a norm for the main characters to share their points of view by looking at the camera for a few seconds and even telling us with silent lips their inner thoughts as if failing to do so would hinder the communication with the audience!
There are things though which remain unchanged despite the thriller has moved on so much with the advance of technologies. For example, pairing the protagonist with a comic sidekick is still the norm, and while the lead has to stand up to scrunity in all aspects (and therefore a bit boring), his sidekick would usually have all the fun for human being, humourous and even naughty. I am charmed by the actor who played the sidekick in this film and found him most endearing and funny.
The major impact though is how the police was represented. It was not just that events evolve around the journalist, his sidekick, and the vampires, and that all the leads of crimes resulted from the (supernatural) instinct, extreme alertness, talents, hard working and integrity of the protagonists, but even at the scenes where police was present, it was them who gave orders to police as if they were their commanding officers!! Alfred Hitchcock never trusted the police, but it was here that they were rendered entirely redundant as if they were a mere group of salaryman in uniform!
The Vampires reminds me of Irma Vep, starring Maggie Cheung and directed by Oliver Assayas. The only thing I can remember the 'remake' of 1996 was how obscure and complicated it was. I wonder if I can understand it a bit better.
'Popular' with its contemporary audience, I am sure even a toddler today can spot some of the cracks in the plots. It was also obvious that the technologies of the mid-1910s would not allow shooting in dim light, and therefore all the street scenes at night are identical to those of the day time, making it sometimes rather confusing (even in this rather simple plot story) to follow the sequences of events. The actors, male or female, young or old, all seem extremely athletic and were capable of climing up the walls like a monkey on a tree! In terms of performance, it was a norm for the main characters to share their points of view by looking at the camera for a few seconds and even telling us with silent lips their inner thoughts as if failing to do so would hinder the communication with the audience!
There are things though which remain unchanged despite the thriller has moved on so much with the advance of technologies. For example, pairing the protagonist with a comic sidekick is still the norm, and while the lead has to stand up to scrunity in all aspects (and therefore a bit boring), his sidekick would usually have all the fun for human being, humourous and even naughty. I am charmed by the actor who played the sidekick in this film and found him most endearing and funny.
The major impact though is how the police was represented. It was not just that events evolve around the journalist, his sidekick, and the vampires, and that all the leads of crimes resulted from the (supernatural) instinct, extreme alertness, talents, hard working and integrity of the protagonists, but even at the scenes where police was present, it was them who gave orders to police as if they were their commanding officers!! Alfred Hitchcock never trusted the police, but it was here that they were rendered entirely redundant as if they were a mere group of salaryman in uniform!
The Vampires reminds me of Irma Vep, starring Maggie Cheung and directed by Oliver Assayas. The only thing I can remember the 'remake' of 1996 was how obscure and complicated it was. I wonder if I can understand it a bit better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)