The twenties of the twentieth century was characterized by, among other things, be the decade in which many of the greatest achievements of cinema in its silent stage saw the light, many of the most magnanimous film exercises of the silent era were produced, many of the most prodigious masters of cinema materialized their masterpieces. One of those illustrious representatives is the Austro-Hungarian Erich von Stroheim, one of the European luminaries who emigrated from their native lands to American regions, to continue producing genius work in Hollywood. It is the case of this film, in which the filmmaker adapted to the big screen a classic by Frank Norris
McTeague, in which the history of an individual is shared, he practices the office of a dentist, and marries a woman, female who is favored when she wins a lot of money through a lottery. But winning that money will only arise greed, so much of it, her greed as well of a former boyfriend of her, spiteful and greedy by the fortune; the life of the three will be profoundly altered by money, and by the inherent avarice. The film is known worldwide -for the versed public at least- for having suffered one of the most infamous mutilations in film history, probably the greater, as the European director having shot over nine hours of material, then producers compel him to reduce montage two hours, destroying the integrity of the original film. But we'll talk about it later.
In the beginning of the tape we see some individuals working in mines, wielding stones with traces of gold we see McTeague (Gibson Gowland), a character who shows no interest in the precious metal he is handling. McTeague gets to become apprentice of a dentist and learns the job, practices it, lives of it and receives one day the visit of his friend Marcus (Jean Hersholt), who takes with him as a patient her cousin and girlfriend, Trina (Zasu Pitts). It is thus that the dentist spends much time with Trina on more than one occasion, two or three hours per session sometimes, so much that can not help feeling attraction to the sweetheart of his friend. McTeague can only confess to Marcus the irrepressible attraction he feels to Trina, and his friend departs, let him free path; the dentist finally declares his love, she hesitates, but end up marrying. Trina gets creditor of large booty after winning a lottery, arousing jealousy and greed in Marcus, who attends the wedding. Marcus envy the couple, makes McTeague lose his job, Trina becomes a compulsive miser, obsessed with saving every penny in any possible way, but has to work as a housemaid. The problems between spouses grow, McTeague flees the village, Marcus -for the money- and others seek him, to the Valley of Death, where a final and tragic struggle will be waged.
As prologue to his film the great Erich von Stroheim uses the correct resource to quote some verses of the author of the original work, the literary work, Frank Norris with a message that above all, he always had the truth, without selling to fads or what others think, always acted and spoke the truth; a meaningful message when one considers all the paraphernalia that surrounded the film. In the picture, von Stroheim prints very human feelings, in simple and close manners, with much simplicity and closeness, as in the case of the elderly who like each other, they known their daily routines and try to always match, but never cross a word; elderly behaving like teenagers, and director portrays that attraction with simplicity. Emotions also simple are portrayed, as when a character feels his greed powerfully knock on the door when he hears about a fine silverware valued hundreds of thousands of dollars; thus, the most human feelings are running the events, the greed of jilted Marcus, the greed of the once simple Trina, who becomes a compulsive and obsessive thrifty, emotions genuinely inherent in the human are directing everything, those will gradually be destroying the protagonists, because von Stroheim builds his film from these very human feelings. We talk about a filmmaker who in his films knows how to portray intensity, a master filmmaker knows how to capture emotions, how to convey feelings, passions through their creations; Austro Hungarian is a good example of this, as we can see in the sequence in which McTeague, having Trina sedated and unresponsive to everything in his office chair, gives up to his impulses, and after long resistance, kisses her clandestinely. McTeague is a rough character, has little contact with women, and his tension and irrepressible attraction are correctly reflected in that sequence, like when we are informed that it can not also avoid the inherent evil in his interior, as evil seeds; he is thus a living duality, an individual plagued of contrasts and contradictions, the biphasic in the protagonist is as severe as fascinating, and is further reinforced in the end, when after liquidating his comrade, again we see him caressing tenderly a bird.
And the introduction that the filmmaker makes us of his main character is extraordinarily eloquent, startlingly powerful, as we see McTeague, coarse and rough-looking, first working in the mine, directly manipulating blocks of stone copiously impregnated with gold. But far from flinching, man is completely indifferent to the valuable mineral, and moments later, when finding a wounded bird, treats it with love, even kissing it, as trying to breathe life again, the contrast is powerful but does not end there. Then, with another mine worker, when his partner hits the bird away, in an instant lifts the subject to throw him down a ravine with tremendous strength and ease; so the director presents him, disdaining gold first, stroking the bird, finally throwing way down an old man, all without further hesitating, after which the black screen "McTeague" reads. It is therefore a subject full of contrasts, intense and seductive character, whose duality, whose unpredictable personality will be one of the storylines of the film. (The use of a black screen where the character's name is read just described is efficient and can be seen with other characters, but only in certain versions of the film). In his feature von Stroheim also makes clear his skill and mastery when making films, establishing a cathedra of visual narrative, very correct and expressive close-ups (the close-ups of McTeague's lips kissing bird, close-ups of the cat's face wishing the caged bird, among others), medium or long shots, zooms and travellings that make up all of a close and simple narration, in whose simplicity we nottice that extensive work of nine hours documenting the town and its locals. By the way, the film has moments of outdoors, a film considered naturalist, because the director insisted on shooting on location, not in the studio, facing various difficulties, weather and various kinds (problems with cameras and equipment, etc.), all to produce his film in his own way; that makes us understand how must have mortified and affected him the mutilation of his work. However, the formidable filmmaker was able to generate an authentic compendium of cinema, like Billy Wilder assured in an interview with the European director, Erich was a decade ahead of his time, said the yankee, the Austro-Hungarian replied not ten but fifty years ahead was his case.
Indeed, we find elements of neorealism, by the closeness and simplicity with which everything is portrayed; expressionism, although not abundant or patent, but we can nottice an efficient use by moments of light and shadow; we shall find modern cinema even further, everything is present in
Greed. Returning with the close-ups, this is combined in turn with a plastic symbolism, like the parallel of the feline coveting the bird, very evident, and see also lean and languid hands greedily fondle and intermingle with gold coins, a symbolism as plastic as obvious. The greatest infamy in the history of cinema, as some no doubt would call it, is manifested in the film, known the fact that all the material edited because of producers, about seven hours of filmed material was destroyed, the "holy grail" of film history, as an initial text says in some version of the film. That's where that terrible meanness is embodied, in the various versions that are accessed as a result of the terrible mutilation, is that all versions or cuts that are appreciated of the picture, are nothing more than efforts, approaches to what really wanted the master von Stroheim, torn apart by the mutilation of his work, as we can read in the opening credits, where the Austro-Hungarian left testimony of pain and suffering for the mutilation of his sincere work. Versions of two hours, something more or something less, versions of four hours, all approaches, even where there are versions with still images, photograms concatenated and mounted to narrate certain parts; and although it is relatively interesting that the lens carefully study the corners of the frames, it is inevitable to note that this work, this assembly is not the product of the creative filmmaker, but a version, a variation of what he wanted to capture. One more example, and very probably the cruelest and palpable, of how much they can affect a film's meddling producers. The actors are all correct in what circumstances described allow, Gibson Gowland and Zasu Pitts, stellar couple meet in their roles, particularly solvent Gowland in a powerful and unforgettable film.
Greed becomes more than a feature, it becomes a myth, a legend, the legend of the tape of nine hours which was reduced to two, destroying the "surplus" materials; all feeds the legend of an extraordinary movie, certainly necessary for the enthusiasts of the most elegant cinema, the silent cinema.
The twenties of the twentieth century was characterized by, among other things, be the decade in which many of the greatest achievements of cinema in its silent stage saw the light, many of the most magnanimous film exercises of the silent era were produced, many of the most prodigious masters of cinema materialized their masterpieces. One of those illustrious representatives is the Austro-Hungarian Erich von Stroheim, one of the European luminaries who emigrated from their native lands to American regions, to continue producing genius work in Hollywood. It is the case of this film, in which the filmmaker adapted to the big screen a classic by Frank Norris McTeague, in which the history of an individual is shared, he practices the office of a dentist, and marries a woman, female who is favored when she wins a lot of money through a lottery. But winning that money will only arise greed, so much of it, her greed as well of a former boyfriend of her, spiteful and greedy by the fortune; the life of the three will be profoundly altered by money, and by the inherent avarice. The film is known worldwide -for the versed public at least- for having suffered one of the most infamous mutilations in film history, probably the greater, as the European director having shot over nine hours of material, then producers compel him to reduce montage two hours, destroying the integrity of the original film. But we'll talk about it later.
And the introduction that the filmmaker makes us of his main character is extraordinarily eloquent, startlingly powerful, as we see McTeague, coarse and rough-looking, first working in the mine, directly manipulating blocks of stone copiously impregnated with gold. But far from flinching, man is completely indifferent to the valuable mineral, and moments later, when finding a wounded bird, treats it with love, even kissing it, as trying to breathe life again, the contrast is powerful but does not end there. Then, with another mine worker, when his partner hits the bird away, in an instant lifts the subject to throw him down a ravine with tremendous strength and ease; so the director presents him, disdaining gold first, stroking the bird, finally throwing way down an old man, all without further hesitating, after which the black screen "McTeague" reads. It is therefore a subject full of contrasts, intense and seductive character, whose duality, whose unpredictable personality will be one of the storylines of the film. (The use of a black screen where the character's name is read just described is efficient and can be seen with other characters, but only in certain versions of the film). In his feature von Stroheim also makes clear his skill and mastery when making films, establishing a cathedra of visual narrative, very correct and expressive close-ups (the close-ups of McTeague's lips kissing bird, close-ups of the cat's face wishing the caged bird, among others), medium or long shots, zooms and travellings that make up all of a close and simple narration, in whose simplicity we nottice that extensive work of nine hours documenting the town and its locals. By the way, the film has moments of outdoors, a film considered naturalist, because the director insisted on shooting on location, not in the studio, facing various difficulties, weather and various kinds (problems with cameras and equipment, etc.), all to produce his film in his own way; that makes us understand how must have mortified and affected him the mutilation of his work. However, the formidable filmmaker was able to generate an authentic compendium of cinema, like Billy Wilder assured in an interview with the European director, Erich was a decade ahead of his time, said the yankee, the Austro-Hungarian replied not ten but fifty years ahead was his case.
Indeed, we find elements of neorealism, by the closeness and simplicity with which everything is portrayed; expressionism, although not abundant or patent, but we can nottice an efficient use by moments of light and shadow; we shall find modern cinema even further, everything is present in Greed. Returning with the close-ups, this is combined in turn with a plastic symbolism, like the parallel of the feline coveting the bird, very evident, and see also lean and languid hands greedily fondle and intermingle with gold coins, a symbolism as plastic as obvious. The greatest infamy in the history of cinema, as some no doubt would call it, is manifested in the film, known the fact that all the material edited because of producers, about seven hours of filmed material was destroyed, the "holy grail" of film history, as an initial text says in some version of the film. That's where that terrible meanness is embodied, in the various versions that are accessed as a result of the terrible mutilation, is that all versions or cuts that are appreciated of the picture, are nothing more than efforts, approaches to what really wanted the master von Stroheim, torn apart by the mutilation of his work, as we can read in the opening credits, where the Austro-Hungarian left testimony of pain and suffering for the mutilation of his sincere work. Versions of two hours, something more or something less, versions of four hours, all approaches, even where there are versions with still images, photograms concatenated and mounted to narrate certain parts; and although it is relatively interesting that the lens carefully study the corners of the frames, it is inevitable to note that this work, this assembly is not the product of the creative filmmaker, but a version, a variation of what he wanted to capture. One more example, and very probably the cruelest and palpable, of how much they can affect a film's meddling producers. The actors are all correct in what circumstances described allow, Gibson Gowland and Zasu Pitts, stellar couple meet in their roles, particularly solvent Gowland in a powerful and unforgettable film. Greed becomes more than a feature, it becomes a myth, a legend, the legend of the tape of nine hours which was reduced to two, destroying the "surplus" materials; all feeds the legend of an extraordinary movie, certainly necessary for the enthusiasts of the most elegant cinema, the silent cinema.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario