As said elsewhere, I'm really ambivalent about Bergner. We probably agree about the awfulness of "Catherine the Great", but what you call 'theatre aesthetics' can occasionally be quite effective for creating a sort of almost mannerist artificiality which might appear surprisingly modern and is definitely interesting on its own terms (see "Der träumende Mund"). But surely the Kammerfilm's intentions were rather to provide psychological insight and subtlety, and this is where Nju (or Bergner) fails to a degree. I have no big problems with that, but it just makes Nju more 'conventional' than necessary.lubitsch wrote: Bergner however is an actress which makes me cringe, thankfully we don't have to listen to her pronounciation here, but she is one of the worst examples of early German cinema and especially the acting being in the claws of theatre asthetics.
This 'original cut' is something that bewilders me for the simple fact that it is about 20 minutes shorter than the 1973 Mosfilm version, and I haven't found any information about the differences. The intertitles of both versions look different graphically, but apart from that only a side-by-side comparison might reveal whether there are indeed parts missing or cut in a different way. Perhaps it's just projection speed, though.lubitsch wrote: However I watched the Grapevine release while there's also an edition of the Ukrainian government around which beyond looking better offers the original cut which hopefully may clarify some story points.
Another nice film watched last night: Moskva (1926) by Mikhail Kaufman, one of the earliest 'full-blown' examples of the city symphony genre, which makes for a good comparison to Vertov's The man with a camera of course, as Kaufman was the cinematographer on the latter film. Moskva is certainly the more 'conventional' film and one that is far more openly 'propagandistic', ending with a roll-call of what seem to be important Soviet representatives and extolling more directly the progress created by the new state (I'm relying on guesswork here, as I had no subs at hand to translate the intertitles; but the word 'Soviet' often figures quite prominently among them). The film also doesn't follow the effective 'one day in the city' scheme used by Ruttmann and Vertov, but rather shows us different aspects of city life consecutively: traffic, work, art, sports and so on. Lots of fantastic imagery here, including a brief scene of high diving shown in reverse which anticipates "Olympia" by more than ten years. However, these are short moments, and the general impression of the film is far more 'documentary' compared to the 'imaginary' or 'essentialised' city that Vertov would show three years later. Perhaps the comparison to Moskva makes the special character of Man with a camera more visible than the more usual comparison to Ruttmann's "Berlin". Vertov's film is first and foremost a reflection on filmmaking and only secondarily a city symphony. While both films have a certain utopian character, Moskva seems to look for the future foremost by way of the new socialist society and is thus more similar to Vertov's "Forward, Soviet!" and "The eleventh year". The man with a camera doesn't have a different view, of course, but the utopian character there is much more created by the constant emphasis on the art of film-making itself (note also the absence of intertitles in Vertov's film compared to the intertitle-heavy Moskva), and the power of art to transform society.