Valentino, Desert Romance, and The Sheik

Perhaps one of the best known silent film's and the film that started the idea of the male sex symbol way back in the 1920s, George Melford and William Marshall's 1921 film The Sheik might be one of the best romance films ever made. The film plays out like a harlequin romance novel with the dashing Rudolph Valentino as the male lead at the height of his film career. After this film was released, flappers had tons of Valentino posters hanging up in their rooms and caused a cultural craze for everything Arabian. If you want, you can watch the film yourself here.

Valentino plays Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan, a French educated Arab Sheik who has his every wish commanded, fights fierce in battle and even fiercer in love. Lady Diana Mayo (Agnes Ayers) is a British expatriate, staying with her brother Sir Aubrey (Frank Butler) in the Algerian town of Biskra. The Sheik catches her trying to sneak into the all-Arabian casino and finds something attractive in her fire and spunk. He sings outside her window that night and when she goes off into the desert on a guided tour with Mustapha Ali (Charles Brinley), he captures her and brings her back to his camp to be his wife. Diana is sullen in the desert and does not instantly fall in love with the Sheik, as he had planned. After raping her, the Sheik feels guilty and gives everything to her that she asks for, except her freedom. The Sheik's old friend, French writer Raoul de Saint Hubert (Adolphe Menjou) tells him this is a foolish way to win Diana's heart and the Sheik agrees to let her go. Before this can happen, Diana is captured by the desert bandits let by the Sheik's enemy Omair (Walter Long) and it is up to the Sheik to save her.

A lot has been written dissecting this film within modern social, political, sexual, and racial contexts. For an article that discuses The Sheik and sexuality in films, you can read here.This article deals with the social mores that surrounded the making and aftermath of The Sheik's release. This article deals with racial profiling in movies such as in The Sheik and this article specifically deals with the treatment of Arabs in Hollywood cinema. All of these are good background readings for the film, if you want to see how it is currently intrepreted by several groups.

For reviews on the film, you can read this article from the Film Reel blogspot that gives some history of Valentino and the film. This review from the Media Center discusses the context of the film and interpretations of it, as do the articles in the paragraph above. Phoenix Cinema does a review of this film and its sequel Son of the Sheik, which was released in 1926 and also stared Valentino.

Ben-Hur: The Stories Behind the Story

Everyone knows the story of Ben-Hur, how it begins with the birth of Jesus Christ, tells the story of Judah Ben-Hur and his family during the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and the oppression of Jews during this period, as well as the events of the life of Jesus Christ. Of course, most people know Ben-Hur as Charlton Heston and his childhood friend turned enemy Messala as Stephen Boyd. What many do not know is that the bilblical epic Ben-Hur from 1959 is not first or only version of the story.

The original story was written by Lew Wallace, a Union general in the civil war, statesmen, lawyer, and author. Wallace’s book Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ was originally published in 1880, making the story close to 130 years old. The book was the bestseller of the Nineteenth Century and has never been out of print since it’s first publishing, though more people know the story of Ben-Hur than they do anything about Lew Wallace. Later, in 1899, the book was turned into a Broadway play, literally setting the stage for it to be filmed when the technology came along.

The first film version of the movie was made in 1907, titled simply Ben Hur. Most versions made of the biblical epic are at least two hours long, since the book is around 575 pages long. Not this version. Canadian director Sidney Olcott managed to condense the film down to a mere 15 minutes, which is some serious talent. You can read two reviews I have found for this version, the first one at the Bible Films blog and another thanks to absoluteastronomy. I have also posted the films below here divided up into two parts. The first is a mere eight minutes and the second is a little over three, so it isn’t a long drawn out film to watch.

The next version is yet another silent one, from 1925, titled Ben-Hur. It followed a similar plot to that of the book and the more famous 1959 version. This version has been preserved by the National Film Registry. You can get some film stills and history on this page and you can access some of the music from the film here, thanks to You Don’t Have to Visit blogspot.
Below is a trailer from this 1925 film.

And finally, we come to the famous 1959 version, which for a long time held the record of the most Academy Award nominated film. If you want more information on this flim, you can access this page, thanks to Filmsite.org, or this one, thanks to reelclassics.com. For a good review, you can read this article, thanks to Associate Content.If you notice, the one thing all of the film versions have in common is that they all include the chariot race scene, perhaps since this is action not to be missed out on. Below is an original trailer from this Ben-Hur for some entertainment.

Biblical Epics: The King of Kings or King of Kings?

Biblical epics have long been a part of film culture, from the classic Charlton Heston The Ten Commandments to the controversial and oft protested The Last Temptation of Christ. Modern biblical epics have even been made, such as Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ and religious doctrine has been even turned into musicals, i.e. Joseph and the Amazing Techincolor Dreamcoat and Jesus Christ Superstar. Still, biblical topics in film and on stage are not new. Today I was like to cover the film King of Kings, my only problem was choosing which one.

You see, there are two versions of King of Kings, the more popular biblical epic from the 1960s by Nicholas Ray and the 1927 version by legendary director Cecil B. DeMille. Both films are spectacularly done, considering the techonology available for the time. Then again, doing a biblical epic doesn't require a lot of fancy machinery and special effects. Still, both films cover the same topic: the birth, final days, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Using the material available, I am going to try and compare these two films.

We'll go with oldest first, starting with the DeMille 1927 version of the film. Properly titled The King of Kings, this film would get points if we had a longest title category. Even though it is a silent film, DeMille took full advantage of what effects that were available at the time. The entire resurrection scenes were done using technicolor for extra awe.   However, this film does have a lot of Anti-Seminitism and further encourages the falsehood that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Filmfanatic.org discusses the redeeming qualities of the film and does a brief review. The site decentfilms.com explores both the good and bad of this film in this review. DeMille claimed that The King of Kings was his favorite of all the films he had made. Before the invention of video, The King of Kings held the record for most screened picture on earth, had been seen by over a billion people, and was shown somewhere on earth every day. The Cecil B. DeMille site also offers a brief bio and synopsis of the film, which can be read here. The story has very human elements to it, though it isn't for everyone. A great history and synopsis of the film can be read here, thanks to cinemaweb.com. For some good trivia about the film, check out this part of the IMDB site.

Now we will be moving on to the 1961 Nicholas Ray movie. The second film takes a lot from the old one but is much more political. Barabbas plays a major role in this film, though he doesn't typically in biblical films about Christ. This was one of the first major films to show the actual face of the actor portraying Christ. The narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury which was read by Orson Welles.   Filmfanatic.org does another review for this film, which can be read here. The Ferdyonfilms blog does another great review about the entire film. This film version is particularly popular among Christians, as exhibited by this entry on the Bible Film Blog, which discusses the Christian elements of the film.

Of course, in the end, I have to leave it up to you. If you can't find the films, watch these clips I have provided and make up your own mind. First, here is the trailer for the 1927 version by DeMille:

And secondly, here is the trailer for the 1961 biblical epic version of the film.

And as a very special Christmas treat, here is a colorized scene from the DeMille film:

"The white dust from Hell!"

As we saw yesterday, early exploitation films weren't limited to the ridicule of marijuana in their films. The film Cocaine Fiends, also known as The Pace that Kills, was first made as a silent film in 1928 where a young farm boy goes to the city and is ruined by "dope". The film was remade with sound in 1935 under the same title with a new cast, though some footage from the old movie was used as well. At the time, it was billed as a "Public Information Film" with the intention to inform the American peoples of the dangers of cocaine. For those of you that want, the film can be found here to watch.

The plot follows along the basic exploitation film outline. In the film, small town girl Jane Bradford (Lois January) meets charming Nick (Noel Madison), who unbeknownst to her is a drug pusher, even though his official screen name is Nick the Pusher. Nick lures Jane with promises of a fast paced life in the city and some questionable white powder he says can cure her headaches. They go off to the big city and Jane becomes addicted to the cocaine, loosing all interest in her family. Jane's brother Eddie (Dean Benton) comes to the big city to look for her and while working as a car-hop, attractive customer Fanny (Shelia Manners) gets him hooked on the white stuff as well. Dorothy Farley (Lois Lindsay) comes into the lives of both Eddie and Jane. She is dating a detective named Dan (Charles Delaney), so things get tricky when Nick kidnaps Dorothy and tries to get her hooked on the drugs as well. Its another classic tale where innocence is lost then regained and the good are rewarded while the evildoers are punished.

The film has become a large cult classic at film festivals and there is even a band named after Jane Bratford. Of course, its easy to see why the film has such a cult following since it features a club called "The Dead Rat". Like most exploitation films, this is a b-movie with some bad acting, bad camera and lighting (mainly due to the film being made in 1935 on a low budget), and spread a lot of misinformation and implausible situations. It always astounds me how dumb and guillible a lot of the characters in these films are.

For those of you who want more information to explore about this film, I have a few things you might want to look at. First, The Spinning Image, a UK blog about various films, has done a synopsis, background, history, and review of the film, which can be read here. Again, our friends at 1000 Misspent Hours have done another review of the cult classic and why they find it unwatchable, which can be found here. For those of you who particularly like movie posters, you can check out this article from the Weird Poster blogspot about the particularly gruesome and yet hilarious posters made for this film The blog has a great collection of movie posters that just have to be seen to believe.

48 Hours of Horror on TCM

Turner Classic Movies has some big plans to make this Halloween even scarier.They are doing a "48 Hours of Horror" special movie marathon on Thursday, October 30 and Friday, October 31. This marathon includes a collection of horror anthologie as well as movies based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft. You can find the schedule for the 30th here and the one for the 31st here, so you can better plan which films you want to watch and see what is on the list for those days. The TCM site also allows you to send reminders to yourself that these movies will be on and when.

Additionally, TCM is keeping you updated with their own blog. From October 25 to 31, the TCM blog Movie Morlocks, will be blogging about their favorite horror movies and why they enjoy these movies so much. The blog-a-thon will touch on several different movies and topics about old horror films and their significance. I hope you will take advantage of these great resources.

"There are spirits everywhere..."

Perhaps the first horror film ever made, The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari or as it was originally titled in German Das Gabinet des Dr. Caligari, came to the screen in 1920 as a German Expressionist film directed by Robert Weine. Thanks again to public domain, you can watch a wonderful version of the film here.

The film is one any film student should watch and I also recommend it for those of you out there who are artists. The techniques used in the film are a little trippy and surreal at times. Expressionism, which was very prominent in Germany, was about distorting reality to create emotional turmoil. Other expressionist works include artist such as El Greco and Edvard Munch's famous and oft-stolen painting "The Scream", two of the German films I blogged about earlier The Golem as well as Nosferatu, the music of George Gershwin and Igor Stravinsky, as well as the literary works of August Strindberg, Franz Kafka, and Eugene O'Neill. Though you don't have to be a student of art or film to enjoy this movie, there are definite aspects of the movie art and film lovers would see before the rest of us.

The plot is somewhat elusive since the film is Expressionist, and all. The main character Francis (Friedrich Feher) tells a story about his friend Alan (Hans Heinrich von Twardowki) and Francis’s fiancée Jane (Lil Dagover). Alan and Francis go to a fair where they meet the strange Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss) who shows his future-predicting sleepwalker Cesare (Conrad Veidt) to them. Cesare tells Alan he has until dawn to live and it comes to pass that Alan is murdered the next day. Cesare is the prime suspect and abducts Jane. Turns out, Dr. Caligari has been using Cesare to help him commit murders while sleepwalking for a period of time. Cesare runs away from those pursuing him, dying of exhaustion. After Cesare has died, they find Dr. Caligari has fled. Francis finds Caligari at a mental asylum. The ending at the asylum provides you with several twists and turns, making you wonder if anything in the film actually happened at all. The film may make you think or may leave you scracthing your head, trying to figure out what it was you just watched. Either outcome, I still think you should watch it.

The technical and artistic effects used in this movie are strange and wonderful, hence their appeal to the art and film lovers out there. The current time is done in strange blueberry hues whereas the flashback is done in dingy brown ones. This is one of the first films to do a “frame story” or flashback premise. The makeup is artistic and creates an image that is sort of a cross between a mime, a goth, Edward Scissorhands, and the guys from KISS. The scenery is extremely artistic and surreal. Most of the sets were made from paper and shadows were painted on the walls. The effects of the film are often citing as influencing film noir. The entire film has a dreamlike, surreal quality to it, which meshes perfectly with the macabre and unforeseen ending twists.

An artical done on the plot and further exploration of the film can be found here, written by the film and movie buffs at Plume-Noir.com. The Plume-Noir article details how this film influenced future German Expressionist film as well as its impact on German films in the 1930s and those made when Hitler came to power. Also, the Moving Picture Blog has done a great study on the film as well, which you can read here. Joe Leydon of this blog probably did a better job of describing the film than I did, so I would highly recommend you checking this out if you want to know more about the film.

Where is the real evil?

In the days of silent film in Germany, writer and director Paul Wegener embarked on what may be considered the first movie trilogy about the Golem, a legendary Jewish monster created by a rabbi to help in the Jewish struggle against a religiously oppressive Europe. The first in the series, The Golem, was made in 1915 and is legendary not only because of its subject matter — which some consider antisemitic — but also has gained in legend because of its status as a lost film. Of course, this version is not entirely lost and if you scramble around the internet, you can find some precious remaining clips of the original film. The sequel was a short comedy film Wegener made in 1916 called The Golem and the Dancing Girl. The third and final movie and the only one to survive was the 1920 full length feature, which was a prequel to The Golem. It is the film which I intend to focus on.

The official title of the film in German is Der Golem, wie er in die Welt Kam translated into English as The Golem: How He Came Into the World and it details just what it says, the birth of the Golem. Another great public domain film, you can watch it here. Though not necessarily a horror film, the film I want to talk about in this post is often put into that genre, especially because of the time period during which it was made. I decided to include this during my Fright Fest because I found, like in many creature movies, the evil of this movie is not the monster but the monstrousness of society.

Now before we go on further and I start getting angry comments about antisemitism, let's put the film into a little perspective. It was made during the Weimar Republic in Germany, pre-Hitler's rise to power a year or so later. During the time period, movies did not have to be politically correct and though you can detect some antisemitic sentiments in the film, that doesn't mean you should not watch it and judge it for yourself. Any of you that want to can read the real Jewish legend of the Golem here and do your own comparison of the legend and the film. After watching it myself, I found it rather pro-Jewish, but that is irrelevant to you watching the film yourself. Personally, I prefer to be a bigger person, look past any political/antisemitic message this film might have, and focus instead on the filmography, which is splendid.

The film is a horror film of sorts, a creature flick one might say, and, like Frankenstein, involves the creation of a monster intended to help people but instead takes a dark turn. Accused of black magic and being a threat to the Christians of Prague, the Jews are told they have to leave. They create the Golem to defend their people against the dark force that threatens their existence. The Golem starts out kindly enough, doing what he is told and not causing any arm. More than anything, he helps out around the house of Rabbi Loew, who created him. The Golem more than anything is a good creature who wants to help others. Despite the rabbis intent for good and the Golem’s seemingly good nature, the Golem turns against his master at the end, because of the evil of the Rabbi’s assistant, and everything begins to unravel. There is also a subplot about the High Rabbi Loew’s daughter falling in love with the Emperor’s messenger who is sent to evict the Jews, for those of you who love forbidden romance.

The scenery is beautiful and seems to have the same production value as an epic film. Lighting is used wonderfully throughout the film. Since color is not an option during this period in film, lighting effects such as the ones found in this film are all that filmmakers could use to create such effects, which Wegener has done splendidly. The music of the film is also masterful and helps create the atmosphere that makes the film. Amazing special effects are used to portray the mysticism in the movie and use elements one might not suspect early film of having. The costuming is also magnificent, the costume of the Golem in particular. This truly is an all around wonderfully made film.

On a side note, this film is sponsored by a great blog called Filmschatten which features tons of forgotten and public domain films in their entirety for you to enjoy. I really hope you'll check out the blog, the film, and have some fun.

A Symphony of Horror

I had the pleasure of discovering that Google Video has the complete silent film of Noseferatu posted for viewers to see in its enterity. The film itself is short compared to most modern day features, running at around an hour and twenty-four minutes. Officially titled in English Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, the 1922 German film, directed by F.W. Murnau, is the closest any film interpretation has come to recreating Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula on the silver screen. Before Bela Lugosi turned Dracula into a sauve, sophisticated, man about town, Nosferatu was the terrifyingly devilish impression people had of vampires.

The film was actually made in Germany, but since it is silent, the title cards were easily translated into English for a wider audience. This translation is a true testament to how the art of film can transcend the language barrier. More than reading the title cards, though, you find yourself relying on the expressions and actions of the characters to propel you through the story. Without the added music in the background, you can still understand completely what is going on. However, I would recommend keeping the music on and turned up since the score, done by the Silent Orchestra, is particularly haunting. Several scores for the film exist and are widely available, even fragments from the original score by Hans Erdmann remain and can be heard, thanks to the Phoenix Wind Project.
Now, I know a lot of people are not big fans of silent movies and they would much rather hear the lines from the actors than read the title cards on the screen, but this film is definitely a classic and any film buff, lover of horror or vampires, or just someone looking for a little culture and exploration can get into this film. Sure, the dreaded Count Orlok may not be as terrifying to modern audiences as he was to the first generation of movie-goers, but he is still the closest to Stoker's description of Dracula and terrifying in his own, silent right. And yes, the "werewolf" towards the beginning is in fact a hyena.

Some of the scenes you might fine a little cheesy since we're used to a word of modern filming techniques, CGI, and computers, but you have to learn to appreciate the abilities they had in the time period. And even if some scenes are a little dated, there are scenes, such as the entrance of the Nosferatu himself that will still chill you to the bone, especially if its after midnight and all the lights are off. For its day, the film is wonderfully acted. The hauntingly talented Max Schreck takes the title role of Nosferatu/Count Orlock in stage makeup that rivals modern horrof film costuming. The other stars of the film are the angelically handsome Gustav von Wangenheim as Jonathan Harker and Greta Schröder as his tragically beautiful wife, Mina.

At any rate, Nosferatu is not only a classic film but a classic horror film, one of the must haves on any ultimate horror movie list.

Silence is Golden

Silent Film was a revolution in the arts and set the stage for all modern filmmaking as we know it. They created Hollywood, the first celebrity culture in America and aboard, as well as revolutionized what the term “art form” meant. They provided a new medium for people to enjoy, setting the stage for television and therein the Internet. Yet, as culturally significant as Silent Film was, not a lot seems to be done to preserve these films or give modern audiences access to them.

Most older films are made using nitrate film. The nitrocellulose base of nitrate film not only decomposes steadily over time but can also be harmful to projectionists because of chemicals within it. This decomposition has made it increasingly difficult to restore films as well as locate them since many old films have been completely lost. There is no telling how much art or film history we have lost because of the disintegration of these precious reels.

While many silent films are physically lost, the ones that we do have restored sometimes seem culturally lost. Very rarely do they show silent movies any more. You either have to seek out a showing at a local theatre or venue or catch them in rotation, usually late at night on Turner Classic Movies or another movie channel. Another option is to buy the films so you have them at your own disposal, but I have been hard pressed to find Silent Film collections at any of my local DVD retailers. A few websites, such as The Silent Era provides you with a list of “Lost Films” as well as DVDs of those films which have been restored. Another sight, Silents Are Golden, provides more resources on Silent Film including essays on their cultural impact, movie stills, posters, screening lists, and places where silents are being made available. In addition, Martin Scorsece has helped to found The Film Foundation, which works towards the preservation of classic films, tries to educate modern audiences on film preservation, and provides an abundance of film references.

These classic films are not only a part of our history and culture, but they are very much enjoyable to watch. Sure, the special effects may be nothing compared to modern CGI and some of the acting may seem overdone, but silent film is an art form of its era, something we can no longer recapture. Everyone working in modern television, film, or who even posts a video on the Internet owes a lot to those early Silent movies. Perhaps if modern filmmakers returned to their roots, they would learn a little bit about what current film needs.