Greed (1924) - Erich von Stroheim

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 Man Who Laughs (1928) - Paul Leni

One of the last films of the silent period, and one considered among the last great films, one of the great classics of that glorious moment in the history of film art. All in a very significant year, 1928, just the year when would see the light the officially recognized as first sound film, ending the silent era, and bringing one of the greatest revolutions that took place in the cinema. The great Paul Leni suited for this occasion a novel by literary giant Victor Hugo, and certainly one of his most appreciated novels to French author, in which he portrays the story of an individual in seventeenth-century England, the son of a exiled nobleman and victim of what was called "comprachicos", individuals who bought children, and performed surgical practices in the face of the kids, deforming them and leaving an eternal and bizarre smile. The film tells the story of that unfortunate, while a love affair goes growing with a blind girl with whom they grew up together. Remarkable film, from a filmmaker who produced not a few imperishable exercises, and worked hand in hand with the great masters of silent film, also an adaptation that was certainly a challenge, with such a controversial and yet complex subject, represent sleaze of a grim, almost creepy smile. Conrad Veidt is responsible for the complicated task, and the fact is that his work is extraordinary, seriousness and expertis of the filmmaker are reflected, and actor's performance fits great in one of the final works of the great Paul Leni.

               

In 1690, in England, we see the monarch, James II (Sam DeGrasse), resting, attended by his servant Barkilphedro (Brandon Hurst), he receives the news that a nobleman, who previously refused to give allegiance to the king, returned from exile, is looking for his son. Learns the kid ended up with "comprachicos", was sold to individuals practicing strange facial surgeries, deforming faces of children. The surgeon in question is Dr. Hardquanonne (George Siegmann), the child is called Gwynplaine, and is welcomed by Ursus (Cesare Gravina), both live with Dea, one baby girl saved by the child from the street. Gwynplaine (Veidt), defaced since childhood with a smile, as an adult is a traveling circus attraction, and is well known for the crowds, along with Dea (Mary Philbin), now a woman as well. The king is dead, a great show is done in court, and Dea and Gwynplaine are taking approaches. But the man who laughs, as he is known, will get restored his noble heritage, having to marry for it with Duchess Josiana (Olga Baclanova), but future wife laughs at him. Then the laughing man and Dea have already declared his love, they match, but given the failure of the wedding, there are order to capture Gwynplaine, the wedding is attempted, the Duchess need to receive inheritance. He refuses though, does not get married, is pursued, but finally have a chance to stay with Dea.

The context is delineated to us soon, we are located in England, XVII century, the so-called "comprachicos" and its abhorrent practices, the thought is nightmarish, typical of a nightmare, peddling children but what is worst, disfiguring them for life, making scarecrows in circus attractions, street phenomena who are condemned to a pathetic existence. That person is our protagonist, a tortured, tormented being who finds love despite all in the humanity of a blind, the only woman who paradoxically sees what no one else sees, sees and loves his way of being, ignores his face, she, the blind who loves him, which is presented to us in many occasions significantly dressed in white. Gwynplaine lives among circus people, people of comedy, but curiously the major of the comedies is his life, an individual who awakens taunts and jeers, but never loses the smile, reinforcing powerfully irony, but while strengthening the presence and pathos of the character, which seems to laugh not to mourn. The very idea of ​​adapting a novel to film is always a complex task, and if it is a work of Victor Hugo, playing a particular subject, it is even more, because as mentioned above, the image is certainly hard, represent a man who has a awkward grin forever etched on his face, a disfigured face takes indeed a bizarre look, even disturbing aspect; known is the detail that even the author of Batman, Bob Kane, was inspired by the character of Gwynplaine and his creepy grin to create the arch villain by excellence of the hero, the Joker. The interpreter for such a complex role becomes Conrad Veidt, one of the great names in Germany actor matters then, star of the legendary The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) by Robert Wiene, cornerstone of German Expressionism, besides having also worked in American films when he had to emigrate from Germany with Hitler's rise -not to go any further, the mythical Casablanca (1942) also has him in its credits-, given his anti Nazi insight. This is therefore one of the biggest names of silent film and was able to adapt to the arrival of talkies, a real acting legend, and his interpretation is to remember, with that creepy and disturbing smile that for much of the film we see him hiding, his eyes gravitating desperately, his frowned and while extremely strange gestures occur in his sinister face. Undoubtedly one of the great performances of this legendary actor.

The film shows the experience and journey of a seasoned filmmaker in silent films, such an experienced expressionist in the use of black and white as narration resources and expression at a time, manifesting it in some of his shots, containing strong chiaroscuros, creator comfort in such situations is noted, comfort and narration flow together with these resources, sometimes observed a rather soft contrast, and sometimes the same effect is sharp. The montage will also have moments of variation, showing the film with a relatively frenetic pace at times, to acquire a rather slow and parsimonious way, consistent of course every time with the circumstances of the picture. The domain and category of German director are very evident in this film, one of his works of maturity, where we will see he was a very technical filmmaker, who shone on the technical side, and among other staging techniques we observe overlays planes, multiple variations of this resource we will appreciate during the footage, capturing alienation and delirium, visually is most different from all, the most unreal, it is in those moments where we nottice the great expressionist that Paul Leni was, a filmmaker from the golden age of German film, plus some setting that certainly have a lot of strength in its composition. For those decades of the last century, the cinema in North America began to decline, gradually ceased to be an art to go being an industrial product, the great bastions David Wrk Griffith and Mack Sennett began to weaken, foreigners, immigrants from various parts of Europe, they were those who try to rescue the artistic content of the pictures, those were the years of Von Stroheim, the superb Von Sternberg, Hungarian Paul Fiejos, and Paul Leni. The musical accompaniment is also remarkable, and it is particularly idyll sequences between Gwynplaine and Dea, with sublime and almost ethereal notes properly acclimating tender moments in which traumatized laughing man is approaching his blind lover. Even singing notes, perfectly consistent to music, eventually creating an ethereal environment, when both individuals, outsiders to normal society, find love in each other's company. Such "experiments" -among to just mentioned, there are times when the film sounds are inserted, not yet definitively, in an embryonic mode, but were approximations, were glimpses of sound in a movie film- in a silent feature is one of the details to highlight in the film, not in vain considered by experts in silent films as a genuine masterpiece, although some works of Leni are perhaps best known, such as The man of the wax figures (1924), Last warning (1929) or The dead's will.

For the final sequence we have one of the most visually powerful passages of the film, that night uproar dominates everything, crowned by the bizarre smile of a man who laughs, the sequence happens at night, plaguing the dark all the hubbub, appreciating some of the moments of greater ease in the narrative of the camera of the German, and also setting some of the most chromatically attractive moments due to contrasts that are generated. Leni while adhering largely to French literary work, in the end a license is taken by applying considerable changes and opting for an end full of hope, lovers embracing together with Gwynplaine finally getting his sightless beloved -woman character that in the book has a final quite different-; the tormented Gwynplaine, who turns sleazy identify his grins, whetrher they are genuine or mixed with terror and humiliation, finds love, peace, happiness. The figure depicted can be seen as an allegory, that sordid smile can be a symbol of derision the king, who banished a nobleman, who sold his son to a "comprachicos" only for the infant finally to recover his noble benefits, and what is more, even rejects the hand of a duchess in the very house of Lords. The staging is therefore enormous, full of notable right guesses, acting particularly Conrad Veidt is consistent, but also Mary Philbin, Dea, is a great contribution to the film, sweet, innocent, fragile, some critics even relate her representation with those of Lillian Gish, Griffith's muse; distances apart from one case to another, the contribution of Philbin is correct and significant. Great film, as initially pointed, was born in a year of great significance in the history of cinema, The Jazz Singer in 1928 was released, and although its success was questionable, or if it is a mediocre film like some think, is indeed the picture that brought the sound to the movies; The Laughing Man is considered by some critics as the last great masterpiece of silent film, Paul Leni would direct one more film after this work, The Last Warning (1929), which would be the culmination of a filmography not too prolific, with many short films in content, it is certainly a remarkable artistic career. In the years that began to happen what is now an overwhelming and aberrant reality, when cinema was ceasing to be an art in America, and when Nazism expelled many talents of their European homelands, was in the yankees land where these talents flourished, as in the case of the great Paul Leni, one of the brightest directors of the silent film, and we have in this work one of his greatest cinematic achievements.

The L-Shaped Room (1962) - Bryan Forbes

British film directed by Bryan Forbes, a feature belonging to the film movement known as Free Cinema, and was characterized by simplicity and ordinariness of events represented, a movement which was a kind of response to the film that was produced in Hollywood. The film, adapted by Forbes to the big screen, is based on the novel by Lynne Reid Banks, it is a good example of the topics usually addressed by this English film movement, and presents the story of a young woman in London, which has some drama in her life. She is pregnant, and gets accommodation at an inn, where she meets a young aspiring writer, and the motley collection of tenants; although the room is dark and somewhat bleak, she will end up taking like to the site and making friends with many of the guests, as is deciding what to do about her pregnancy, and the writer, with whom has emerged a romance. The film explores with simplicity the psychology of central character, she, and it is equipped with a unique and attractive aesthetics, a visual language in which good performance of British filmmaker notes. It is not certainly the Free Cinema one of the most prominent and popular movements in the art of features, but with a decent performance of its protagonist and a nice staging, the film set a significant exercise of British cinema.

             

After a panoramic shots of London, we see beautiful young Jane Fosset (Leslie Caron), wandering the streets, until a lodging, where, after some hesitation, she ends up renting an apartment. Meet promptly Toby (Tom Bell), one of the tenants who live there, who shos some interest in her. Jane is pregnant, it is doubtful whether or not to have the baby, going to see a doctor to monitor her condition, but when he determinedly proposes abortion, she decides to have the baby. While accustomed to gloomy department, which has problems with insects, discuss with Doris (Avis Bunnage), landlord, meets other tenants, like Johnny (Brock Peters), while Toby, who writes novels, still shows attention to her, and she will accept this attention, they begin to date, an idyll is borning. Jane runs into the father of her child, but before its failure, she sets him apart from her life. Toby and ger have some fun at the club where Johnny is a musician, their romance is consumed. This causes discomfort in Johnny, and suddenly Toby disappears, he has found out about the pregnancy, something that has bothered him. But he reappears, and despite everything, loving each other, seek to overcome the bad times, and stay together, as Christmas is approaching. Definitive moments are approaching as well, regarding her first born child and regarding Toby, and she finally takes a determination in that crucial moment of her life

The film from its initial images makes it clear its intention and tone, introduces a close and real portrait of London, and graphics it with those wide panoramic shots, touring with parsimony on the London streets, before heading into the story itself, with still shots of her walking down the streets, normal, everyday situations are shown. It's a nice handling, the camera work in those first few minutes, where the filmmaker manages his artistic tool with looseness, we see agile camera movements, intelligent performance, sliding and bringing even close-ups. A language that streamlines the story and we will serve as a prelude to the work that will be appreciated later. That efficiency of shots and framings, of travellings, is also complemented by an attractive play of light and shadow, a tangible expression of that atmosphere, which is embodied in two distinctly different environments: inside Jane's room and outdoors. Thus, inside the room, Room L-shaped (and throughout the house in general), we see powerful chiaroscuros and a powerful work of shadows, shadows spread through all chamber in various ways, forming a perennial gloom atmosphere where even the empty spaces express and convey feelings, always dark; whereas, on the contrary, outdoor atmosphere is opposite, almost always bright and shiny, marking the greatest of contrasts, and in turn setting to us its nature, the atmosphere of the site, shady, dense, where everything happens. That contrast is one of the attractions of the picture, broken only by the club where Johnny plays the trumpet, the unique atmosphere that breaks with the visual duality, exterior with the house, contrast in that house where a minimum wall provides little privacy to tenants, where everything is heard, where friendship, jealousy, sex, seem to have no clear contours.

We appreciate shots, framings, which enhance the intentionality described, especially indoors, with falling shots of stairs, the aforementioned frames of empty spaces, etc. The film has a rather warm, simple development without too many ornaments, it feels the character of closeness, that they are persons and daily actions what we see, and that simplicity and easiness is that from where calm and smooth development arises, it characterizes the picture. It feels a not extraordinary or spectacular, but everyday story that happens to people from next door, as are the three friends who share experiences in hosting, mixing friendship, love, jealousy, something therefore quite normal. And that normal course is reflected in the development of the film, a linearity that is not broken almost never on the tape, except perhaps when she faints; apart of that, the development of the tape is entirely conventional, linear, is Free Cinema. Good example is the current of this British movemente, film that shows nothing false, artificial or prepared, just average daily history of average human beings. On the feature the psychological issue becomes important, her problems, because after renting the room, we see her sobbing immediately, we know that she has a problem, and how she will interact with tenants give us more scope in this regard. Forbes also provides us a sketch of Londoners then, including a frustrated and economic deprivation writer, is the London people and their customs, and their psyche, their prejudices, being the scene of the Christmas celebration a good compendium of that. The musical accompaniment, though not abundant, knows to appear at times to intensify certain feelings, sometimes wildness, sometimes pain and uncertainty, a positive asset on the film and characteristic element of this film style. Free Cinema is not, in fact, one of the most colorful movements, nor dramatic, austerity media likens it to the French Nouvelle Vague, contemporary movement -although even some call Free Cinema the British Nouvelle Vague, right is that there are distances-, both seeking the prevailing split from regular film, mostly American cinema, fighting and artificial ways, with rawness and freedom of camera. The film is far from being a masterpiece, but with the mentioned technical attractions, added to the beauty and interpretive strength set in his role by Leslie Caron, the film, although almost unknown, is an acceptable exercise of European cinema, away from the glitter and fame of others works, but noticeable.