Phantom



....

Yes, see this thread.

This will be a double pack apparently, and Nick confirmed that "Großherzog" will feature the Kalat commentary that is also on the Kino disc.

How would those of you who have seen all Murnaus (I only own Der letzte Mann and Nosferatu at the moment but will buy Sunrise for the third time - yes, I said differently some weeks ago but the packaging of the new release plus the Czech print is just too much to resist) rate Phantom on its own and in comparison with his other works? MoC's description has piqued my interest.

Phew...difficult question. I'd say that in a way it's more in the mainstream of Weimar cinema than "Nosferatu" and certainly less visually inventive than "Der letzte Mann"; in other words: it is less 'conspicuous' in Murnau's canon than these films, but it still has so much atmosphere, good acting, wonderful camerawork and a story to think about that I would say that the purchase of this disc should be a no-brainer unless you have the Flicker Alley edition already. "Großherzog" is more minor, but still a quite entertaining, slightly Lubitschian film. "Sunrise" probably can't be beaten, and "Faust" and "Tabu" should certainly have priority, too. But I'm sure that in the long run you'd want to see them all. You simply can't go wrong with Murnau.

I suppose I would rank Phantom above Großherzogs, Schloß Vogeloed, and Tartuffe, but below the other MoC titles and City Girl. Phantom is more narratively engaging than the titles I rank below it. But, aside from a handful of clever visual effects and a few tender scenes near the end, it is not as visually stunning or as emotionally powerful as those I rank ahead of it. I do agree with Tommaso, though, that it is certainly a disc worth picking up. Just be sure you don't neglect Faust (my favorite) and Tabu for too long.

Tom and reno, thanks. Sounds like Grossherzog in particular is one for Murnau completists only. I have seen Faust and Tabu but with both it was more admiration than outright love which is why I don't have them on my shelf next to Der letzte Mann and Nosferatu.

Well then, you never know. If you have more admiration than deep connection for the more highly, pictorially tour-de-force films rendering individuals whose lives and worlds are more in myth than workaday common reality, you might respond strongly to Phantom and Grossherzogs. There's no magic, no myth, no highly stylized renderings-- at least not to the degree of something like Faust (whose final third slumps just a touch in narrative terms, I think). Of course Letzte Mann & Nosferatu have their moments of stylization (especially the former's whirling, gliding, experimental cinematographic moments) but they operate in the world of the common and the ordinary, like the two about to be released by MoC. It may be that some of the things that supposedly cause other people to be cool towards these films-- the lack of extreme pictorialism, materialization of the dream faculties beyond the brief asides in Phantom-- may be the things that rope you in and keep you there. Part of it will depend on whether or not you're a genuine fan of silents, and how you respond to silent melodrama... and whether you watch this kind of film even beyond the greatest "names"/canonical titles... i e if you get natural enjoyment via spending an evening or afternoon taking in a silent film of average caliber as a genuine fan of silents does. If so, you'll get pleasure out of these as they are both several cuts above standard silent fare.

But if your interest in silents is limited only in the legendary blazing masterworks, only seek them out when a big name like Lang or Murnau is attached, and otherwise leave the genre and it's melodrama staples alone, then you may not get much out of these.



Phantom better than Tartuffe? That's a fascinating take-- pls explain!

Completists of pleasure, perhaps; I loved Grossherzog. It's highly charming, moves like a bullet, has some beautiful location photography (not quite on the par of, say, Nosferatu or Tabu, but not far off either), and a very sprightly tone. Tommaso is quite right in calling it Lubitschian - the story is in the ludicrous operetta-melodrama tradition with some nice little quips scattered through, but it's remarkable how easily Murnau takes to all this. It's more in the tone of the adventures-in-the-big-city section of Sunrise, but in a less overtly expressionistic style.

(In all fairness, I've just been proofing the MoC disc, but hadn't seen it before and found it a rather beguiling work. It needs more recognition.)

I chalked it up to growing weary of Janning's ham.
He's almost as relentless here as in WAXWORKS.

Schreck, fantastic post (as usual). To be honest, Faust and Tabu are definitely films I need to revisit, not least because I have only seen them once. Some of my all-time favourites I did not fully embrace until second or third viewings so perhaps it just needs a bit more acclimatisation on my part with these two Murnaus and silent films in general, beyond the best known titles. I am genuinely not sure where I fit in the spectrum of audiences of silent films. Nosferatu, Der letzte Mann, The Man Who Laughs (your post on the Kino disc encorauged me to seek the film out, so I'm indebted to you), Keaton's The General, Passion of Joan of Arc and L'Argent I loved instantly. Gold Rush and City Lights I also hold dearly, the former for being the first film I ever remember seeing, as a young boy in an afternoon screening at school, and the latter for that heartrending and beautiful ending which never fails to move me to tears. So in that respect, I do wonder why at times I'm somewhat reluctant to be more adventurous and seek out the lesser known works, even of the likes of Murnau. I suspect that I might be more of a casual fan of silents but I'm open to be fully converted! I'll let you know how I get on.

(forgot to add Sunrise to the list of my silent film darlings; that I'll be buying this for the third time in two years says it all)

Well, the films you name would be on the top-ten or top-twenty list of every silent film fan, I suppose, and for good reasons. They are not only among the best known, but are actually those that are among the most striking, too. But then, they also epitomize general characteristics of silent films: firstly, heavily leaning towards the importance of visuals (to start with an obvious and banal point); secondly, in films set in the then contemporary world you will find a style in clothing and hair-dos which despite of being from the 20s looks far more 'modern' to me than a lot of what came afterwards, only proving the cyclical nature of fashion; thirdly, I often perceive also a certain half-mythical quality that nevertheless is very far removed from 'fantasy' fare (I'm thinking of Stiller or Breistein here, especially), something that in its apparent simplicity gets very much to the core of human emotions; finally, often also a radical openness for experimentation without being strictly speaking avantgarde. In other words: if you liked the films you mention, I'm sure you should take the plunge and immerse yourself in more. It needn't be those two Murnaus for the moment, but make sure you don't miss "Pandora's Box", "Die Nibelungen" or "Asphalt" much longer. These would be my first recommendations, but the list is much, much longer (and Schreck's probably infinitely so).

I was always aware of the major ones through them being mentioned in connection with music (Tom Verlaine's Friction being compared with Caligari for instance) and also had a couple of old sepia coloured books of Hollywood and stars decorating my flat simply because they looked so good, but never got the chance to see bugger all out here in the sticks until video came around, allied by what was a fantastic rota of films on TV.

What really launched me into Silents was the Hollywood series when it was screened in 88 because that showed me how it all developed and put it into context for me. You might also find it a useful starting point, combined with The Other Hollywood series as well for the European angle, essential given how advanced Europe was, with the early Scandinavian masters in particular.

Tom, Pandora's Box is on my list (Pabst and Brooks! I'm tempted to a blind buy but amazon marketplace inexplicably doesn't list the Criterion so I'm going to have to try other avenues) and Asphalt sounds good. Forgot to mention that I have the BFI People on Sunday which I have to watch properly sometime soon.

Considering that I do seem to prefer the "contemporary" films more, I'll definitely give Phantom a spin now.

I was careful in my post not to use words like 'better' and 'worse' because, having seen both Phantom and Tartuffe only once, I don't think I am in any position to make that call. It's tough for me to rank Murnau's films against one another, and my preferring Phantom to Tartuffe has less to do with thinking one is a greater film than the other, and more to do with one film having made a stronger impression on me than the other. What I particularly like about Phantom is the way that Murnau presents the psychological strain of Abel's character through a series of nightmarish images. Each of these effects is visually exciting and gives Abel's character a sort of depth that the characters in Tartuffe did not have. Also, the obsessiveness of Abel's character, and the elusiveness of the Veronika character, reminded me of the things I like most about Vertigo. [EDIT: I see that the MoC page for Phantom even mentions this similarity.]

Granted, it has been a while since I've seen Tartuffe, so perhaps I am forgetting a few things here and there, but its scheming characters and film-within-a-film chamber drama did not resonate with me as much as Phantom did.

Now I'm curious to know why you find it fascinating that someone would prefer Phantom to Tartuffe. Do you think Tartuffe is a vastly better film?

Fuck, how did I miss Breistein, he even has a film called Felix... Can you tell us a bit more Tommaso, this one has never even appeared on my radar. Anything on DVD?

The only Breistein I've been able to see is "Brudeferden in Hardanger", available from the Norwegian Film Institute with English subs in a wonderful edition. The film makes wonderful use of the Norwegian landscape and traditional rituals and creates a fantastic pastoral-archaic atmosphere. Gorgeous cinematography all around and well acted. It reminds me a little of such films as Stiller's "Johan" or Sjöström's "Outlaw and his wife". On the NFI disc there's a documentary showing excerpts from other Breistein films, and these short bits confirm the impression that the film itself makes, namely, that here we have a director who seems to be completely unknown these days but who probably deserves to be ranked very high in the Scandinavian silent film canon.

A bit of discussion can be found in some still not fully restored pages of the Silent Film Thread and elsewhere on the forum.

This sounds well worth checking out. I'll have a look at the other pages, don't know how I missed it. I can't see any mention of it all on the NFI website, any ideas?

Here ya go-- now buy this masterpiece, prontissimo. It's sublime.

EDIT: Reno, re your question vis the difference between Phantom and Herr tartuf:

Yeah, I guess I would say that Tartuffe is the more obviously successful of the two films. Murnau's magic touch is in evidence througout the whole of Tartuffe, with an assist by Mayer and Freund... the German All-Star team. The material isn't bogged down with that grindingly belabored von Harbou Phantom script... and I just really have a big problem with Al Abel's performance in the lead. I think he overplays the childlike innocence of the character-- it's neither a stylized expressionist performance, nor is it a realist performance. At the same time the photography and the art direction, and some of the visual conceits in Phantom are breathtaking-- there's quite a lot to commend it. But in the end I think it's a bloated Kammerspiel, with much much much too much exposition for too little going on. Look at the Kammerspiel materpieces of Karl Mayer, in collaboration with Lupu PIck, Karl Grune, and Leopold Jessner: Scherben, Sylvester, Die Strasse, Hintertreppe: these are hugely condensed, perfectly structured human dramas, rendered in shabby interiors, gloomy streets, smoky beer gardens, exploring the frailties of the human condition and utilizing the chiaroscuro and touches of expressionsim for mood and punctuation. As does Phantom. But Phantom, I feel, dilutes it's impact by belaboring itself-- I think part of this was due to the desire to make the film a grand event for and with the author of the novel Gerhart Hauptmann, who actually appears in the film at it's start.

Tartuffe has that tightness, that perfection of most of Carl Mayer's work in the 1920's. It's an unusual piece for Murnau due to it's self-reflexivity-- and Janning's as usual throws all the gears in overdrive and walks out with a belly full of scenery-- but in the end I think the film is more successful in carrying out the mission of it's material. Which btw it is a quite original treatment of (i e Moliere).

Magic, thanks. I will.

Duh, I don't want to play the bad guy and I think I wrote it here, but neither PHANTOM nor FINANZEN would have ever seen the light of DVD, VHS or even a TV screening weren't it for the name of Murnau. I think we shouldn't forget that Murnau churned out films at high speed in the beginning of his career, so there isn't much point in looking at these films as utterances of the great master. PHANTOM follows a novel by Hauptmann who had his heyday as dramatist decades ago and wrote some truly bad novels like the one for this film. There are some visual flourishes, but the elderly Abel is already a hilarious miscasting for the youthful seeker of adventure. AND FINANZEN ... well it's not even the best version of the novel, Gründgens made a superior one in 1934. My prof wrote the essay in the Berlinale book and shrugged the film off in a paragraph.
Both films rank solidly in the lower third of the 500 silent features I've seen and I think it not particularily wise to recommend them to less experienced viewers who will be even less responsive to the limited qualities of these films.

Even wiser would be a little reduction in the size of the britches you've tailored for yourself, and a little more self-awareness and humility. You've seen the films yourself-- you wanted to see them, sought them out, and granted yourself the privelege of watching them. Why should anyone else be any different, or their journey of discovery and motivation be any less the "wise"?

You saw them, you didn't think much of them-- end of story. Your prof, his book, his shoulder shrugging, your count of films under your belt, all these have no contact with the great variety of individuals in life sitting in their living room watching a dvd. It may be that someone who is less experienced with silents may be more responsive to these titles because their viewing criteria is much simpler, and far less critical and built up with callouses. There are people out there who love these films-- proclaiming their recommendations as "unwise" because you don't share their opinion is just too much. You're a kid in school-- in ten years you'll look at some of the films you see now as raging masterpieces and think "what the hell was I thinking?"

Let me for once second HerrSchreck's comments here in response to John "lubitsch" Doe. There's nothing "hilarious" about Alfred Abel's casting, for one, unless you're of the Mystery Science persuasion — respectless on both sides of the screen.

I'd also like to swerve the general conversation — not just in this forum — away from the strange reflex of only speaking about these films in relation to 'canonical' masterworks such as Nosferatu or Faust or Tabu, etc., and from the term 'melodrama' entirely. On the one hand, Phantom, if it requires pigeonholing, would reside more comfortably in the cooler, more wuthering patch of 'psychodrama'. It's a mysterious, and sad, film. The images and the mise-en-scène are exquisite by any standard, regardless of whether fewer 'trick-shots' have been employed than in earlier or later Murnau. The scenario by Thea von Harbou is never less than intelligent. Before I saw the film, I had the impression from the tossed-about received-wisdom that it consisted of an hour-and-forty-five minutes of romantic weepy, and one or two scenes of Murnau's supernatural precision. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a deeply felt, deeply uncanny work.

As for Die Finanzen des Großherzogs — another revelation awaits. No 'melodrama' — it's an adventure film, through and through and, to be sure, a comedy. The Mediterranean sun and wind dominate. The pacing is fleet, the story as entertaining as any of the best silent serials were they condensed to 80 minutes or so. What Murnau learned of filming in plein air locations from Nosferatu, of addressing sea-borne sets, he applies here. Nothing to do with the ins-and-outs of ledgers — everything to do with action, light but trenchant wit, and surprising images. Behold the chiaroscuro opium-dream revery of the (potential) enslaved, indigent sulphur-diggers — the shocking and insane "animal impersonators" sequence — the entire climax and suspense built around dual hangings... the first of which finds Max Schreck (post-Nosferatu) instrumental.

Who who loves Murnau, and cinema, would not want to see these films? They're astonishing by any... stretch of enthusiasm.

(On an administrative side-note: shouldn't this topic name be altered to include both of the titles and spine numbers? It's a dual, all-are-equals release.)

ck.