Tagebuch einer Verlorenen (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

So, after the absolute delightful experience that was Pandora’s Box, I was quite excited to watch the other pairing up of Louise Brooks and Pabst. This was indeed quite a different movie from Pandora’s Box, and not as good either. Still, it had its strength and well worth checking out, but unlike Pandora’s Box it didn’t feel like it had the same impact as the former. It suffered somewhat from structure, and the impact wasn’t as strong, as well as the themes weren’t as interesting. Still, lets take a closer look.

The character Louise Brooks plays here is quite different from Pandora’s Box. While she there was able to seduce men, and did so with gusto, here she seduces men, but rather against her own will and wit. She is a victim of men’s lust, and in a strange way the themes from the first film are the same here, but warped somewhat. A man forces himself on her, and she becomes pregnant. Now, when the child is born, her parents want to force her to marry this guy, who is by the way an absolute bastard. Of course she refuses and is sent to some prison of sorts with other “deviant” women, her child taken away from her. Here she is monitored by some sick nun and her large bald friend who ensures peace is kept. This part was for me the most interesting part of the film, as the audience are showed some interesting actions and the nun is a great character, who tortures the women at the prison for her own warped sexual pleasure. It is fairly disturbing, and I’m surprised they got away with this in the old days. The implications are great though.

The film lacks a certain drive that Pandora’s Box certainly had. There is a lot of emotional stuff in there, but it just doesn’t tie together as well as the previous film. That said, there are some great scenes, and the film relies on these exceptional sole moments to create its power and meaning. The major problem, compared to Pandora’s Box, is the climax. The climax isn’t that strong, and falls short off the mark, much due to the structure of the film. I know I compare the film too much to Pandora’s Box, but considering the absolute perfection of that film, I feel it is reasonable. Louise Brooks, though, is still great, and the portrayal of the simple naive girl is wonderful, and she truly keeps our interest and concern. Unlike Pandora’s Box, where she was a great asset, here she is basically the saving spirit, although the film craft itself is fine, she does heighten the film to another level. That is not to say that the film is average, it isn’t. But one feels that it could have achieved more, and could have been better. It is still a damn good movie; it just doesn’t reach the cathartic heights that Pandora’s Box did.

Watch Pandora’s Box first, it is a superior movie. However, if you like it, there is not real reason why you shouldn’t watch this film. It still has a lot to offer, and stands fine on its own, and featuring Louise Brooks it is a definite sale. Still good, but falls off the mark compared to the fantastic Pandora’s Box.

Die Büsche der Pandora (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

So I’ve been gone for a long while, I’ve been incredibly busy and have had too much to do, so had to push this page out of the list. I have now, though, handed in all my work for university, and have about a month with nothing to do, yay! I’ve seen quite a few films though, and I’m going to start right where I stopped, in the midst of the German silent era. The film is Pandora’s Box, directed by Pabst who had also done the Three Penny Opera, which I reviewed earlier. I was quite interested in these silent films, as they had been recommended to me by one of my professors. To say the least, I was not disappointed.

The film is staged around its illustrious star, Louise Brooks, who made her career in Hollywood, but left for Germany because of the advances of sound. She gives perhaps one of the finest female performances I’ve ever seen and in a silent film as well! This is a natural, her face looks absolutely perfect on the screen, her facial expressions are always meaningful and simple, conveying the mood and thoughts of the character in a way dialogue never can achieve. As I noted in my last review of a Pabst film, I was impressed with his style, but here it is at a pitch perfect. There is a scene, I won’t spoil it here, which is one of the most effectual I’ve ever seen in cinema. Incidentally, Louise Brooks does not feature in this scene, which makes it even more astounding how effective that scene is. Throughout the film, though, what the film relies most on is the sexual presence of Louise Brooks, who is effective at using her natural charm, and the film portrays this fantastically. Both the audience and the male characters in the film are drawn to her, as she takes centre stage. A lot of the cinematography is crafted around her, and in the process creating some of the most beautiful and alluring shots in cinema. The close ups of Louise Brooks are, as much as the narrative and beautiful story structure, the biggest selling point of the film. But it isn’t cheap, like so much of Hollywood, but rather heightens the film, most importantly because of the story and the subject matter.

Louise Brooks plays a prostitute, who can easily get whatever she wants because of her natural “talents”. But the film doesn’t portray her as a deviant; rather, she is portrayed as an innocent and somewhat naive character. The events that occur are because of her, but less because of what she specifically does and more because of the obsession the men have with her. Of course, this all leads to both horrible and hilarious incidents, and at times the Louise Brooks character is nothing more but a mere spectator. The power of the movie comes from the tragedy, of course. But the film never uses cheap tricks, and one feels that all the elements of the narrative bond together very well. This comes from the exceptional episodic structure of the film, which shows how important editing, in terms of the overall narrative, is. The progression constantly and effectively builds up the tension and themes, and when the last couple of striking scenes come up, one cannot help but be astounded by the completeness of the film and the impact is made strong by this. Indeed, the playing time of the film feels perfect, as it is not too long nor too short, which is something films frequently suffer from. Great stuff!

This is, perhaps, one of the best silent films I’ve ever seen. Everything in the craft is damn perfect, and the presence of Louise Brooks comes as a great addition to all that. The film would still have been great, but she adds so much that it is impossible to imagine the film without her. She is a natural, and she was in another German silent film directed by Pabst, great!

Die 3 Groschen-Oper (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1931)

I watched this curiosity due to my fascination with the German playwright Bertolt Brecht. This is a filmed version of his play The 3-penny Opera, a musical. It is not the kind of musical one is used to, such as Hollywood musicals. Regardless, the film and play are an indictment of bourgeoisie society. It uses irony and satire to creating its scathing criticism of society and individuals. The Brechtian technique is not too apparent here, but that is reflected in that Brecht subsequently sued the company and the filmmakers for ruining his work. Still, I found there was more than enough interesting stuff in the film to keep me from turning off.

The film presents an almost apocalyptic view of society, penetrating through all the filth and hypocrisy. For a film made in the 30’s, this film is quite remarkable. The filmmaking craft is impeccable; the shots are extremely well created. Then again, Germany at the time was one of the cinema powerhouses of the old days, so it is not too surprising. For a film based on a play, it is quite far removed from theatre. This is a musical, so there are a few musical numbers, but very different from what one would expect, being mostly used to Hollywood musicals. But the songs themselves are really good, the score is good, and the lyrics are great. Somewhat, though, they don’t seem to fill the gap enough, there could surely have been more songs. Still, what goes on screen is enough to create the drama, although this could hardly be categorized as a drama film. The sometimes quiet moments are contrasted with scenes of high intensity. The film is also very funny, in its own way. The hypocrisy and evil is so wonderfully portrayed, the characters are for the most part a blast, particularly the main character, who is a schemer and ladies man. The characters antics are quite amusing, and this is one of the main attractions of the film. Brecht has always been great at using stereotypes in a very unique way, and this shows clearly here. Another amusing character is the beggar’s king. He basically runs a business where he makes poor people dress up as dreadfully as possible to make people have pity and give money, then take in some of the profit. A wonderful character, in a quite unusual business, and it summarizes much of what the film is about.

Brecht hated this film, and to some degree I can see why. Yeah, it is true that Brecht didn’t quite appreciate the full extent of the artistic value of cinema. The film doesn’t quite utilize the techniques of Brecht’s Epic Theatre, and it doesn’t try to alienate or create the effect that theatre was supposed to, according to Brecht. Other than the musical numbers, the film doesn’t use any techniques such as Brecht used. In this respect, the film is fairly classical and uses techniques already fairly established in cinema. And actually, the film could have been stronger if it used the techniques of Brecht, to create some fluency between the source material and the film. The film doesn’t quite work according to the ideas and theories of Brecht. Although I am usually adamant that films should be liberal when adapting source material, such as literature or theatre, in this instance it could have helped. I still like the film, but one feels if it should ever have been made in the first place, it is a bit unnecessary. Still, some of the greatest directors of all time, in particular Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, made their best film based on literary source material. The problem here though is that while the film doesn’t adhere to the rules of Brecht, and don’t enlarge his themes, the film in itself doesn’t really say that much otherwise, which is its biggest flaw. Although I do think that Brecht did go a bit out of his way in suing the filmmakers, as they in many ways did do quite a good job, and in the end, so what, they created a film out of his play, but it doesn’t really hurt his original material, and in the end, it seems like he is nitpicking a bit.

There are lots of merits to this film, but overall it wasn’t the greatest film experience I’ve had. There is a lot of wonderful stuff here, but mostly as a result of the great source material the film adapted. I feel the filmmaker wasn’t quite able to make it his own, and neither was he able to make it very Brechtian. It is an interesting little curiosity, and Criterion actually released it, in a quite outstanding edition, with lots of neat extras. If you love Brecht, then this is worth checking out, but otherwise, the average film buff won’t find that much interesting material in here.