FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A mad surgeon (Peter Lorre) obsessed with an actress (Frances Drake) is distressed to learn that she’s happily married to a renowned concert pianist (Colin Clive). When Clive’s hands are mangled in a train accident, Dr. Gogol (Lorre) secretly replaces them with those of a recently guillotined murderer (Edward Brophy), and proceeds to take advantage of Clive’s increasingly disturbed state of mind.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Colin Clive Films
• Horror
• Mad Doctors and Scientists
• Mental Breakdown
• Obsessive Love
• Peter Lorre Films
• Plastic Surgery

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “first sound remake of [the] 1924 [German] classic The Hands of Orlac” (not listed in GFTFF) as an “underappreciated horror gem”, one which “gives definition to the term ‘sleeper'”. He calls out Peter Lorre’s performance as “one of his truly great screen portrayals”, and nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars. He notes that while “of course, Lorre dominates the eerie proceedings”, “Clive and Drake, as one of the strongest, most intelligent women in the horror cinema, are superb” as well:

… and that “thoughtful” casting leads to even the smallest parts being “well written and played”. However, he ultimately argues that the “picture’s success” is primarily attributable to its “eerie visuals”, with the finale particularly “surreal”; and he notes that the entire affair possesses an overall “hard-edged poetic quality”, with a “haunting atmosphere… created by… imaginative use of the camera”. Indeed, one would expect nothing less from a film helmed by noted DP Karl Freund (whose American directorial debut was 1932’s The Mummy), and photographed in part by another noted DP, Gregg Toland.

Peary’s review succinctly sums up the fine qualities of this most enjoyable “Grand Guignol” horror flick, one which afforded Peter Lorre his breakthrough role in American movies, and which remains a gruesomely absorbing tale of obsessive love. Peary is right to call out the performance by wide-eyed Drake (who co-starred the following year in The Invisible Ray); she’s a memorable heroine-in-distress, with more to do and say than Clive (whose character feels oddly underdeveloped, though Clive does a fine job showing his increasingly distraught state of mind). Meanwhile, the intermittent presence of a wisecracking reporter (Ted Healy) feels decidedly out of place, though I’m fond of the humorous character played by May Beatty as Gogol’s tippling housekeeper. But this is really Lorre’s show all the way:

He takes the material and runs with it, managing to present his villain as vaguely sympathetic, despite his nefarious plans to win Drake at any cost (he does save children’s lives through surgery, after all!). Watch for his “disguise” in the second half of the film (see second still below) — kudos to whoever was responsible for its design!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Peter Lorre as Dr. Gogol
  
  
• Frances Drake as Yvonne
  
• Accomplished direction by Freund
  
• Atmospheric cinematography (by Gregg Toland and Chester Lyons)
  
• Fine Expressionistic sets
  

Must See?
Yes, as an early horror classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• Moria Review
• Classic Horror Review
• TCM Article
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A poor country boy (Harold Lloyd) moves to the city and becomes a lowly clerk at a department store, but tells his girlfriend back home (Mildred Davis) that he’s much more successful. When she pays him a surprise visit, he must scramble to save face.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Harold Lloyd Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “Harold Lloyd silent classic” possesses a “splendid mix of genteel character comedy, sight gags, slapstick comic routines, and what [Lloyd] called ‘thrill’ comedy”. Peary points out that while this film is “most remembered for [the] thrilling moment [when] Lloyd hangs from the arms of a large clock” — indeed, this is often cited as the single most famous shot in all of silent cinema — the entire “elaborate”, “cleverly… filmed” final sequence is “impressive”, given that “there is a new adventure on every floor”. Meanwhile, as Peary notes, this breathtaking sequence “shouldn’t make us overlook [the] simpler comedy that takes place earlier”; he enjoins viewers to “watch how [Lloyd] hides from his rent-seeking landlady by hanging with his coat on a hook” (a truly hilarious scene), or “grapples with rampaging women who see there’s a sale at his counter” (note the creative way in which he’s able to temporarily clear his view in the room). Peary is right to call this an “excellent introduction to Lloyd”; it’s a consistently clever delight.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Numerous hilarious sight gags
  
  
  
• The justifiably renowned final building-climbing sequence
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine comedic classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Greatest Movies Review
• Silent Volume Review
• Film Site Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The thrill-seeking daughter (Gene Tierney) of a wealthy businessman (Walter Huston) becomes a regular patron at a gambling house in Shanghai owned by “Mother” Gin Sling (Ona Munson), who is upset that Huston is trying to force her to move her establishment to another district.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Gambling
• Gene Tierney Films
• Josef von Sternberg Films
• Play Adaptations
• Victor Mature Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this Josef von Sternberg-directed outing — a “much cleaner” adaptation of John Colton’s 1926 Broadway play — as “an absolutely ridiculous film”, citing this as the “reason that it has a cult”. He notes that the “extremely weird, overwritten, often dull script” — which is “full of awkward introductions, lectures, people yelling at each other, [and] double entendres” — “comes across like a clumsy first draft that was filmed only because the next 20 drafts were lost”. He insists that “performances by the entire cast — including Victor Mature as a poetry-reciting Arab — are outrageous”, and “so is the ending”. He concludes his review by noting that the “strangest [fact] of all is that von Sternberg didn’t recognize his folly and inserted a few inspired touches along the way that might have been saved for a better picture”.

As evidenced by comments on IMDb, The Shanghai Gesture has retained its cult status, with one user referring to it (with notable delight) as a “campy trainwreck”. Fans seem to especially enjoy both Gene Tierney’s rather nuance-free performance as the spoiled young heiress (whose addiction to gambling is here used as a stand-in for drug addiction, as depicted in the original play), and the presence of Una Munson’s truly outrageous hairpieces; as Peary cheekily notes, she “obviously had hair done by someone who had learned to tie shoelaces”. Indeed, an entire thesis could likely be written on what, exactly, Munson’s — wigs? can you call them that? — give away about her character’s state of mind, particularly as they become literally unbalanced near the end of the story (see still below). Regardless, Munson’s central performance as ‘Mother’ Gin Sling remains the film’s dominant force: she so fully inhabits this archetypal “Dragon Lady” that we’re immediately willing to suspend all disbelief about a white woman portraying an Asian.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Ona Munson as Mother Gin Sling
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  
• Oscar-nominated art direction
  
• An enjoyably pulpy script: “I have no country; and the more I see of countries, the better I like the idea!”

Must See?
Yes, for its cult status.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Images Journal
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A gun-loving but peaceful veteran (John Dall) falls in love with a sharpshooting carnival performer (Peggy Cummins) who convinces him to assist her in a series of hold-ups. Soon they’re on the run from the law, desperate to do one last job before retiring.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Criminal Couples on the Run
• Femmes Fatales
• John Dall Films
• Joseph H. Lewis Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while “there have been many fine movies about young couples driving across the country with the police on their trail, including Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde, which this film surely influences”, “none is more fascinating or exciting than” Gun Crazy (a.k.a. Deadly is the Female). He notes that this “low-budgeter” by director Joseph H. Lewis is “supercharged with energy, non-stop action, violence, passion, and sex”, and, despite being “set against a backdrop of poor, insensitive, smalltown America of the forties”, remains “remarkably contemporary, especially in its portrayal of a country turned on by speed, violence, and crime”. He points out that “Lewis’s achievements are great, ranging from maintaining a terrific pace throughout to attaining a distinct sense of time and place”; a cinéma vérité-like bank hold-up taking place in the middle of the movie — shot in one long take (Lewis’s idea), without informing nearby pedestrians they were filming — is merely the most famous example of his creative genius.

Peary notes, however, that Lewis’s “more inspired contribution was giving his leads to the relatively unknown Cummins (a British actress) and Dall”. In his review of the film for his first Cult Movies book, Peary elaborates on this point by writing that “they both prove to be highly skilled actors who lend an intelligence to the proceedings and express such a complex array of emotions so honestly that it is truly hard to believe that they are not playing themselves”; in sum, “they are simply terrific”. Dall — who most film fanatics will only know from one other movie, Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) — was particularly inspired casting; Peary notes that in an interview with Lewis, he learned Lewis specifically wanted to cast a gay male in the lead because of the inner tension he felt such a man (in mid-century America) would inevitably bring to the role. Meanwhile, unknown Cummins is simply a revelation as (in Lewis’s own words) a “beautiful demon who no man can resist or help forgiving when she does wrong”.

To that end, Peary points out that he actually differs from Lewis’s own interpretation of Laurie (Cummins); Peary sees her as “the victim of a world that doesn’t forgive past sins” — a woman who may “play men for suckers” and “lead a bad life” but who “is sincere when she apologizes to Bart [Dall] for being unable to control her mean temper”. He likens her thrill-seeking tendencies to “a fiend who needs a fix or an alcoholic unable to control the urge to drink” — and this is exactly how I interpret her, too. Indeed, it’s fascinating to see a character who so clearly fits the femme fatale mold, yet remains oddly sympathetic throughout; we really do get the sense she can’t help herself, and wants to (in her words) “be good”. Adding to our sympathy is the fact that she and Dall are (eventually) so obviously in love with each other: as Peary notes, “Even when they flee police on foot through rough terrain, are soaking wet, dirty, bruised, exhausted, and in a panic because they can hear the bloodhounds, he still calls her ‘honey’, and they still take a moment to hug and kiss”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Peggy Cummins as Annie (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• John Dall as Bart (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• The justifiably lauded “one-shot” hold-up sequence
  
• Consistently creative direction by Joseph Lewis
  
  
  
• Russell Harlan’s cinematography
  
  
  
  
• MacKinlay Kantor and Dalton Trumbo’s screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as an enormously enjoyable cult classic. Voted the Best Picture of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Articles
• Greatest Films Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A man (Dennis Price) whose nobly-born British mother (Audrey Fildes) was denied her heritage after marrying an Italian singer decides to seek revenge on the eight heirs (all played by Alec Guinness) who stand in the way of his succession to dukedom.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alec Guinness Films
• Black Comedy
• Class Relations
• Flashback Films
• Hugh Griffith Films
• Joan Greenwood Films
• Plot to Murder
• Revenge
• Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s take on this classic Ealing Studios outing — perhaps the first black comedy ever produced in Britain — is one of decided discomfort; he notes that the film produces an “odd viewing experience in that we laugh as each person is killed, even though Price’s methods are cruel and only a couple of the victims seem like despicable characters”. He points out that “as Price gets closer to his title, he becomes increasingly like the arrogant aristocrats he despises”, and “regards himself as superior to all of humanity (which corresponds to the Nietzschean aspects of the book)” upon which the screenplay was based, Roy Horniman’s Israel Rank (1907). He correctly argues that “our ‘hero’ is a cad, even [having] simultaneous affairs with a married woman (Joan Greenwood) and a widow (Valerie Hobson) of one of his victims”. Of course, as has been duly noted by many critics, “what makes [Price’s] murders tolerable (and funny) is that Alec Guinness conveniently plays all the victims”; to that end, “we are not shocked by each death because we correctly expect Guinness to turn up again quite soon”.

Despite his discomfort, Peary ultimately lauds the film as “beautifully played”, calling out its “absolutely exquisite script” with “sophisticated dialogue [that] reminds [him] of Oscar Wilde”. [“While I never admired Edith as much as when I was with Sibella, I never longed for Sibella as much as when I was with Edith”, our protagonist drolly intones at one point.] Peary points out that part of what adds “to the amusement is that while the educated characters engage in smart conversation, or Price’s silver-tongued narration hints at his egocentricity, absolutely silly events occur” — such as a victim who’s “blown up in the background”, or “lovers [who] plunge over a waterfall”. He notes that his “only complaint” is what he considers to be “an overly convenient (for the writers) ending that saves Price from having to make a difficult decision”, but I disagree; I find it a suitably open-ended finale to a story with an undeniably challenging moral compass.

It’s been pointed out that Guinness’s tour de force work as no less than eight supporting characters (including, in a hilarious bit, one woman) often overshadows Price’s perfectly controlled performance in the lead role; each actor ultimately deserves a different type of kudos, one no less than the other. Joan Greenwood, meanwhile, is suitably sibilant and cat-like as Price’s kindred spirit — an ambitious young woman who takes the first opportunity she sees for social ascension, but immediately regrets her decision. The cinematography (by Douglas Slocombe), sets, and direction (by Robert Hamer) all contribute to the success of the movie — one which film fanatics (and their loved ones) can safely return to time and again when seeking a generous helping of deliciously dark humor.

Note: As far as I know, this was the first comedy to feature one actor playing so many different parts, thus paving the way for similar work by Peter Sellers, Jerry Lewis, and Eddie Murphy, among others.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Alec Guinness as “the D’Ascoynes”
  
  
  
• Dennis Price as Louis Mazzini
  
• Joan Greenwood as Sibella
  
• Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography
  
• A remarkably clever, droll, bitingly witty script

Must See?
Yes, as a justifiably classic British comedy.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• TCM Articles
• TV Guide Review
• Q Network Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
During the depths of the post-WWI Depression in Austria, two young women — the daughter (Greta Garbo) of a councillor (Jaro Furth), and a secretary (Asta Nielsen) eager to marry her poor fiance (Henry Stuart) — degrade themselves in order to survive.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Class Relations
• Corruption
• German Films
• Greta Garbo Films
• G.W. Pabst Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that G.W. Pabst’s “adaptation of Hugo Bettauer‘s novel” — about “how postwar inflation resulted in the financial and moral breakdown of the middle class in Austria and the exploitation and victimization of young women without money” — is “muddled and at times boring”; indeed, it’s frustratingly difficult to follow the “two loosely connected storylines”. While we can more or less make sense of Garbo’s role as the daughter of a man who gambles all his money on the stock market, her romance with Einar Hanson is underdeveloped at best; meanwhile, the more complex storyline involving Asta Nielsen as a secretary-turned-prostitute who witnesses a murder is cluttered with too many minor characters (how many women is Stuart romantically involved with, anyway?). However, it’s true that “the cinematography is superb” (it’s especially fascinating to see how Pabst and his creative team “mixed realism with expressionism”), and “the social themes are still relevant” (albeit dealt with in an overly heavy-handed manner). Meanwhile, film fanatics may be curious to see the film which is perhaps “most famous for bringing Greta Garbo to the attention of Hollywood”; as Peary notes, “those stunning eyes, that mournful expression…, and her mysteriously erotic quality made her a natural for Hollywood love stories.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Greta Garbo in a soon-to-be-star-making supporting role
  
• Edgar Ulmer’s Expressionist/realist sets
  
• Fine, atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though diehard film fanatics may want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Senses of Cinema Review
• DVD Talk Review
• AllMovie Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a renowned conductor (Rex Harrison) is led to believe that his beautiful young wife (Linda Darnell) is cheating on him with his secretary (Kurt Kreuger), he concocts several elaborate scenarios for revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Black Comedy
• Infidelity
• Linda Darnell Films
• Preston Sturges Films
• Revenge
• Rex Harrison Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “Preston Sturges comedy about the fury beneath the serene façade of supposedly happy, trusting marriages” is “uncharacteristically cynical”, pointing out that it “lost money and got mixed reviews when it came out”, but that “many modern critics regard it as a masterpiece”; however, he concedes that “while there are some sparkling moments … it’s the worst of Sturges’ forties comedies”. He argues that “the subject itself [is] distasteful”, and that “the throat-slashing of Darnell in the first fantasy is too gruesome for a comedy” — indeed, “it’s impossible to forgive Harrison after he conceives such an act”. He also points out that “except for Harrison’s difficulties with a recording machine” (an extended sequence which comprises “the most chaotic slapstick routine in any Sturges film”), the slapstick is “annoying” rather than funny. Finally, he argues that “Darnell’s character is [not only] given little humorous to say” but is “miscast anyway”, and he laments that “the supporting parts aren’t worthy of the fine actors who play them”.

I’m almost entirely in agreement with Peary’s review of this pitch-black comedy, which I recall finding off-puttingly distasteful as a teenage ff (and which still doesn’t sit quite right with me today). While I’m much better able at this point to appreciate Sturges’ darkly cynical sense of humor (I now find his clever screenplay creatively conceived, at the very least), I’m frustrated by my inability to relate to the central protagonist. Sure, we’ve probably all imagined some form of unpleasant revenge during our darkest moments of fury — but Harrison’s reactions are simply over-the-top, given that he never actually confirms Darnell’s betrayal. Indeed, while I disagree with Peary that Darnell is miscast (I think she does a fine job in a tricky role), we can’t help wondering why she’s so willing to forgive him time and again for his atrocious (real-life) treatment of her. Ultimately, this is a film most ffs will be curious to check out — given that all of Sturges’ films possess moments of brilliance — but not one I’d consider must-see viewing.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Linda Darnell as Daphne
  
• Edgar Kennedy as Detective Sweeney
  
• An often-clever (if simultaneously off-putting) screenplay by Sturges
  

Must See?
No, though Sturges fans will clearly want to check it out, and it’s worth a one-time look.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Four stories set in different time periods — ancient Babylonia, 16th century France, the era of Christ, and early 20th century America — portray the toxic outcomes of intolerance and inhumanity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• D.W. Griffith Films
• Episodic Films
• Falsely Accused
• Historical Drama
• Morality Police
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is almost uniformly positive in his review of D.W. Griffith’s “most ambitious work”, an “epic consist[ing] of four stories that show ‘intolerance’ (religious, political, social) at work”. He refers to it as an “amazing, thrilling movie” (at least when “seen on a large screen”), and calls it, “in the limited terms of visual storytelling, probably the greatest of all films”. He notes that “Griffith exhibit[s] unparalleled visual power during the individual segments”, but that “his real strength is in editing”, given that he’s “able to build suspense within episodes by strategically mixing perfectly timed long-shots and extreme close-ups”, and to build suspense “for the entire film by cutting back and forth between the various episodes so that they all build to their climaxes at the same time”. He points out that Griffith’s “montage techniques were studied and copied worldwide”, making this an undeniably ‘historically relevant’ film, one which all film fanatics will surely want to visit at some point.

With that said, there’s no denying that this three-hour-long silent movie will, for most ffs, feel like a bit of a long haul to get through. While Peary’s only complaint about the film is that Griffith’s “theme of ‘intolerance’ is a feeble link between the episodes” (he notes that Griffith “seems passionate only about the modern story”), I would argue that Griffith’s overly pedantic presentation style comes across as terribly dated throughout, and will be off-putting to most young ffs. Meanwhile, his groundbreaking attempt to weave numerous stories together has the unfortunate side effect of shifting our attention away from each scenario just as we’re beginning to make sense of it (and the characters). Indeed, despite its undeniable historical value, it’s difficult for me to agree with Peary that “this film has greatness written all over it”, simply given that it doesn’t touch me on an emotional level. I’m ultimately much more aligned with the sentiment of Time Out’s reviewer, who argues that despite the film’s “overwhelming” “visual poetry”, its “thematic approach no longer works”, and the “title cards are [both] stiffly Victorian and sometimes laughably pedantic”. As Chris Edwards argues in his “Silent Volume” blog, Intolerance “is not a silent film for someone new to the medium.”

Of special interest, however, is what Time Out’s reviewer refers to as “the unbridled eroticism of the Babylon harem scenes”, which “demonstrate just what Hollywood lost when it later bowed to the censorship of the Hays Code”; indeed, these scenes are presented with such surprising casualness and lack of moral approbation that one can’t help feeling a renewed respect for Griffith’s sensibilities. Meanwhile, the enormously expensive, expansive sets truly are astonishing, and the lengthy recreation of a Babylonian battle is especially impressive in its rigor and attention to detail. I’m also fond of Mae Marsh’s performance as the female protagonist of the modern episode, playing a young woman whose falsely accused husband (Robert Harron) simply can’t seem to get a break in life; while her travails are presented in an overly melodramatic fashion, we remain fascinated throughout by her uniquely expressive face.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Stunningly grandiose sets
  
• Refreshingly unbridled Pre-Code sensuality (during the Babylonian “Love Palace” scenes)
  
• Mae Marsh as the Dear One
  

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical relevance. Available for free viewing at www.archive.org.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Silent Volume Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In pre-Revolutionary Russia, sailors on the Battleship Potemkin mutiny against their superiors after being served bowls of maggoty soup. When one of their men (Aleksandr Antonov) is killed, they decide to rise up collectively against the Czarist regime.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Historical Drama
• Mutiny
• Revolutionaries
• Russian Films
• Sailors
• Sergei Eisenstein Films
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin by pointing out that it was “probably the first or second film you saw in your Introduction to Film course” (that’s certainly true for me!). He goes on to concede that since at the time you likely “knew little about 20th-century Russian history and the importance of the film in that history or cared [much] about the importance of ‘montage’ in film history, you probably fell asleep” (or, like me, simply didn’t understand what all the fuss was about). But he argues that “if you see it again… then you’ll understand why critics and devoted filmgoers regard it as one of the greatest pictures of all time”. Indeed, though I’ve seen certain sections (most notably, of course, “The Odessa Steps”) several times in different contexts, I only recently revisited the film again as a complete narrative, and — with years of film appreciation and viewing now under my belt — I’ll admit I was duly impressed.

As Peary notes, this “first non-documentary about a political action/historical event proved not only that a cleverly edited series of images could draw viewers into the film’s action and stimulate the emotions but also that the juxtaposition of two images — one of a character, the other of a symbolic object/prop — was a valuable propaganda device because it forced viewers to deduce that the symbol relates to the character”. Peary points out that in the remarkably effective opening section of the film (the first of five), “Eisenstein builds tension by cutting back and forth between armed guards and helpless sailors”. In the film’s most celebrated (third) section — in which “the Czar’s forces march down the ‘Odessa Steps’ and massacre men, women, and children in their path” — Eisenstein similarly “builds tension and creates terror by cutting back and forth between marching faceless soldiers and their victims (whose scared faces are shown in close-ups).” (Indeed, this sequence is so relentlessly devastating that virgin viewers deserve a few words of forewarning — and if you haven’t seen it in a while, get ready to feel your stomach in your throat.)

Peary further points out that during the Odessa Steps sequence, “time stands still, so what would take place in seconds goes on and on — [the] camera pans down the steps, moves back to where the soldiers are, and we start over again”. He notes that “there’s an odd rhythm to the sequence, so that we feel things are going fast (too fast for the victims to think clearly) but simultaneously feel that the cruelty will never stop”; he then makes a potent connection between ‘The Odessa Steps’ and the most famous horror movie sequence of all time — the shower scene in Hitchcock’s Psycho. He concludes his review by noting simply that Potemkin (which circulated in various states of disrepair and politically strategic editing for decades, and was recently restored) is “certainly as influential as The Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane.” It’s a film which, despite its seemingly distant and foreign subject matter, bears multiple viewings, simply for its overall cinematic impact.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The opening mutiny sequence
  
  
• The truly devastating, infamous Odessa Steps sequence
  
  
• Countless memorable images (highlighted through Eisenstein’s incomparable use of montage)
  
  

Must See?
Of course; this one is a no-brainer must-see, at least once.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Onion A.V. Club Review
• Silent Volume Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A movie projectionist (Buster Keaton) is falsely accused of stealing a watch owned by the father (Joe Keaton) of the girl he’s in love with (Kathryn McGuire), and soon finds out the crime was really committed by his rival (Ward Crane). While napping on the job, Keaton imagines himself entering into the movie he’s projecting, where he takes on the persona of a suave detective and attempts to solve a jewelry heist, also committed by Crane.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Amateur Sleuths
• Buster Keaton Films
• Comedy
• Falsely Accused
• Love Triangle
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “dazzling, surreal comedy” — the “most technically innovative feature of the silent era” — had at the time of his book’s publication “finally achieved [the] masterpiece status” it so richly deserves. He notes that, like in Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) (which clearly “borrowed [this film’s] daring premise”), it “explores the nature of film, both as an art form and as a world to which those with wild imaginations can escape…; it treads the fine line between dream and reality, art and life”. In sum, it’s a movie film fanatics will readily embrace, and see much of themselves in.

After discussing the “brilliantly conceived and edited scene” in which Keaton “dreams that he walks toward the screen and climbs into the action”, Peary highlights just a few of the film’s many others “great moments” — including “Keaton riding on the handlebars of a fast-moving, driverless motorcycle, [Keaton] playing expert pool, and, in a bit you have to see to believe, [Keaton] escaping during a chase sequence by diving into a small case held by a peddler woman (actually his male assistant) and apparently disappearing through her body”. He labels the action in the film “furiously paced, inventive, [and] stupefying”, and ends his review by noting that this “picture is proof positive that Keaton was more in control of and in love with the film medium than Chaplin”. (Ah, the enduring Chaplin-versus-Keaton wars — even Peary, an avowed Chaplin fan, clearly can’t help taking a stance.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The hilarious “lost dollar” sequence
  
• Keaton’s initial entry onto the screen
  
• The billiard ball sequence
  
• The vaudevillian peddler-woman sequence
  
• The expertly timed chase scene
  
• The quietly knowing and hilarious final sequence
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Keaton’s greatest films — and that’s saying a lot!

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article
• Silent Volume Review