3 / BD 183 Michael

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

3 / BD 183 Michael

#1 Post by Tribe » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:13 pm

Michael

Image

Danish master Carl Th. Dreyer (1889-1968) directed Michael (also known as Mikaël) in 1924 for Decla-Bioscop, the artistic wing of German production powerhouse Ufa. It was Dreyer's sixth feature in five years and his second in Germany.

Based on Herman Bang's 1902 novel of the same name, Dreyer's film is a fascinating fin-de-siècle study of a "decadent" elderly artist (Benjamin Christensen) driven to despair by his relationship with his young protégé and former model, Michael (Walter Slezak). With suffocatingly sumptuous production design by renowned architect Hugo Häring (his only film work), this Kammerspiel, or "intimate theatre", foreshadows Dreyer's magnificent final film Gertrud by precisely forty years.

Michael was scripted by Dreyer with Fritz Lang's wife Thea von Harbou (Metropolis, M, etc). It stars the director Benjamin Christensen (Häxan); Walter Slezak (Hitchcock's Lifeboat); Nora Gregor (Renoir's The Rules of the Game); Mady Christians (Ophüls' Letter from an Unknown Woman); and Karl Freund (who shot Metropolis) in his only ever appearance as an actor. Freund lensed part of Michael too, but left to work on Murnau's The Last Laugh, and Rudolph Maté (The Passion of Joan of Arc) took over.

Never before released on home video, this 80th anniversary DVD set is a timely opportunity to experience a film that was once described (by Dreyer biographers J. & D. D. Drum) as "having one of the strangest and saddest fates a film ever suffered".

SPECIAL FEATURES

• 80th Anniversary Edition – 2 discs
• Two transfers, two scores (Pierre Oser, 1993; Neal Kurz, 2004)
• Full length audio commentary by Dreyer scholar Casper Tybjerg
• Both English and German intertitled versions
• 26-minute illustrated Dreyer audio interview, 1965
• 20-page booklet
• Reprint of Tom Milne's The World Inside (1971)
• Reprint of Jean Renoir's Dreyer's Sin tribute (1968)
• Translation of the original Danish programme (1924)
• New 2004 essay by Nick Wrigley
• R0 PAL – ie. not region-encoded

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#2 Post by Tribe » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:30 pm

I cannot understate the clearly homosexual milieu in which the three characters (Christensen, Slezak and the majordomo) exist right down to the overly kitschy decor and art styles of the period ("tasteful" nude statues and painting, overly burdened antique furniture, etc.) There is a clear river of emotional life running between these men and it is not heterosexual.
I don't disagree that that the relationships between the men in this film is an emotional one....but what I was wondering is whether or not the "gay" reading of this film is a relatively recent phenomenon. Was Michael looked at back in the '20s as a film with men who "liked" other men?

And please don't take this as any attempt on my part to challenge gay readings of films. I just don't necessarily agree that films that depict emotional relationships between men are necessarily depicting a queer relationship. of course, you don't rely on that fact alone....but if I recall correctly I read something at one point that relied, in part, on the furniture in Sidney Greenspan's character's office in The Maltese Falcon to draw the conclusion that that character was therefore gay.

I think the reference was to Greenspan anyway.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#3 Post by peerpee » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:21 pm

John, have you heard the commentary? Casper covers it all pretty well.

I can't remember where I read it, sometime over the Summer as I was ensconsed in the film, but Dreyer didn't want the film marketing as a "gay film" -- he wanted it to stand on its own, not pigeonholed as this or that.

For me, it's a multisexual film, brilliantly ambiguous, and repeatedly rewarding. Both Dreyer's biographer (Jean Drum) and the late Bob Baker's ludicrously harsh Time Out review, very unfairly trash MICHAEL.

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#4 Post by Tribe » Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:27 pm

Too funny....it's Greenstreet, not Greenspan in Maltese Falcon.

I tell ya, Matt's spellchecker ain't worth a shit!

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#5 Post by Tribe » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:46 pm

Is the Casper Tybjerg commentary (which I obviously haven't listened to yet) on the Kino release the same commentary that is on the MOC release?

I have not watched much Dreyer other than Joan of Arc, Day of Wrath and Ordet. Gertrud, Vampyr and Parson's Widow are waiting their turn in the "to be watched" stack. Notwithstanding that, I can see quite clearly the "ravages that love plays on the soul" theme in the Dreyer films that I've seen, spiritual love being just as "ravaging" as the "carnal" kind. I've always thought the sex as a motivator was quite evident in Day of Wrath, although I don't see it that way in Michael...in fact, I'd dare say that Michael is more a reflection of the "love as ravager" theme than the "power of sexual passion." Regardless, Michael is worthy of another viewing by me before I hit it again with commentary.

John

Eric
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Minneapolis

#6 Post by Eric » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:35 am

John wrote:And please don't take this as any attempt on my part to challenge gay readings of films. I just don't necessarily agree that films that depict emotional relationships between men are necessarily depicting a queer relationship.
I mourn the loss of the old Eisenstein: The Sound Years thread.

User avatar
ltfontaine
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:34 pm

#7 Post by ltfontaine » Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:59 pm

I don't really agree with Peerpee's notion that the film is "omni-sexual" (for one thing I am not sure what he means, apart from its depiction of both hetero and homosexual characters.) I love the absolutely straitforward depiction of these men and their mileu (about which, again, the commentator goes into some detail) and which is presented without apology or as a "problem" and I am glad if it is moving to a universal audience (as it should be.) . I love Dreyer for this. Finally what concerns him are the ravages that love plays on the soul and the great power of sexual passion in defining, whether tragically or transcendentally, people's lives, both homo and hetero.
Casper Tybjerg's commentary does an excellent job of describing the origins of Michael in an explicitly homosexual novel, and discusses a strongly suggestive corresponding subtext in the finished film. But I concur with peerpee regarding the film's "brilliant ambiguity" in portraying (and veiling) the sexual preferences of the Master, Michael and Switt. The three men may very well be settled into some kind of tense triad of affections at the outset of the film, an interpretation for which there is supporting evidence throughout. On the other hand, one cannot deny the ferocity of Michael's subsequent erotic obsession with the Countess, or ignore the Master's comment to Switt that he "doesn't want to die childless," which casts the anguish of his estrangement from Michael in a decidedly different light.

Dreyer resolutely withholds a final definition of these relationships, especially in his meticulously noncommital treatment of the Master. Christensen portrays the Master as deeply disappointed in Michael, but is never permitted a moment in which it is clearly demonstrated that his disappointment is rooted in sexual jealousy. Even when Switt openly taunts the Master, early in the film, that Michael is out chasing a ballerina, the Master barely registers a reaction. Homosexual subtext there may be in Michael, but I would not agree with flixyflox that it is by any means "absolutely straightforward."

User avatar
Tribe
The Bastard Spawn of Hank Williams
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Contact:

#8 Post by Tribe » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:55 pm

All this is rich and fascinating. I just find myself increasingly short with people who evidently find the notion of a homosexual character in some way "unfit" for one so "elevated" as Dreyer. Remember, Dreyer also made films about saints, lunatics. witches, adulterers, liars, vampires and ordinary people hurt by love.
It is fascinating....I hope you don't deem my comments as indicating some belief that homosexuality is an unfit topic for Dreyer. When it comes to older films I sometimes difficult to see those sub-texts at first glance becuase I assume, often incorrectly, that any gay undertones wouldn't be there because gayness back then was so much in the closet. I'd certainly never think that it was impossbile to find its way into films, but I'd think that the powers that be would see to it that evidence of those undertones would be erradicated in the cutting room.

I still haven't heard the commentary, but realizing now that the source material for Michael was explicitly gay goes a long way towards to motivating me to look for the themes and and clues you've mentioned when I give it another go.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#9 Post by peerpee » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:26 pm

Is the Casper Tybjerg commentary (which I obviously haven't listened to yet) on the Kino release the same commentary that is on the MOC release?
Technically yes. Same commentary, but I was sent a very glitched, messed up commentary and spent a weekend completely re-editing it from Casper's original recordings. The MoC version is a slightly different edit. Almost identical though.

I haven't heard the Kino commentary --- are there any glitches or messups in it? -- I patched around 30 things for the MoC commentary.

At one point, Casper says "two" for no reason, other than it was part of his own countdown "1, 2, 3, 4..." -- I edited that out, but it might have crept onto the Kino disc.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#10 Post by peerpee » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:53 pm

I do have some questions of a completely different nature for Peerpee. There is a mention of Mady Christians somewhere on the Eureka box but where on earth is she in the film? I don't see her anywhere. Is this an editorial glitch (like the very funny Herman "BONG" credit.)
Couldn't do anything about Herman Bong, but it's a good laugh :). One interesting tidbit... I was under the impression that these German intertitles were done in the early 90s, but I recently saw Jurgen Roos full-length 1966 Dreyer docu, and his clips of MICHAEL have exactly the same intertitles, so they're *at least* early 1960s when it was reissued.

re: Mady Christians. My source was David Bordwell's book. I think she's a maid, but I'm not sure. It is a tenuous, unsatisfying, cast mention but she is apparently in the film.
Secondly a couple of scenes in the master's salon have sudden interpositions of odd unmatched brief shots which look like they may have been inserted as some sort of "cover" footage to replace missing material. Did the MoC team notice this when preparing the master? I should add the same shots are present in my old TV copy of "Mikael" from 1991 which was itself a restoration of what was previously thought to be a "lost" film.
Didn't notice anything untoward. Got some exact times of these shots?

Martha
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: all up in thurr

#11 Post by Martha » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:44 pm

ltfontaine wrote:It’s already apparent that MoC / Eureka is going to be a great source of important, well-chosen, well-presented films on DVD, and the quality of Michael only heightens those expectations. To finally have access to one of Dreyer’s most elusive titles is reason enough to celebrate, but the options and supplements on the MoC edition make it indispensable for those of us who are especially interested in this director.

It’s turning out to be a pretty good year for Dreyer on DVD. I have to admit that I enjoyed The Parson’s Widow, from Image, less than I had anticipated, but the two accompanying short films are wonderful, and the feature is notably unique as Dreyer’s only comedy. Michael, on the other hand, is a denser, more satisfying film than my prior reading had led me to expect would be the case. It certainly doesn’t approach Dreyer’s unbroken string of masterpieces that begin in 1928 with The Passion of Joan of Arc, but it is rich with evidence of the director’s developing skill with actors and mise en scene.

Dreyer elicits a nuanced and commanding performance from Benjamin Christensen that is especially fascinating in light of Christensen’s function as a role model to Dreyer and the tension that reportedly existed between them during filming. Nora Gregor, best known as Christine in Rules of the Game, appears here in her first film role, the dark subtlety of which is at least partially attributable to Dreyer’s direction, as he rejected Thea von Harbou’s intentions to cast the Princess as more of an outright opportunist. (The sequence in which the Master struggles to “see” the Princess as he paints her portrait prefigures the more extended treatment of a similar theme in La Belle Noiseuse.) Walter Slezak is a bit of a milquetoast in the title role, and appropriately so, but Rob Garrison registers strongly as Switt, who vies with Michael for the attention of the great painter, perhaps as his romantic rival.

Dreyer’s ability to create a world through carefully crafted visuals and spatial effects—in this case a series of opulent, claustrophobic interiors that reek of hothouse decadence, worthy of Petra von Kant—is powerfully in evidence, even though Karl Freund resisted Dreyer’s entreaties to employ the mobile camera that Freund preferred to hold in reserve until moving on to his next assignment, Murnau’s The Last Laugh. (Freund has a brief, most enjoyable cameo in the film, as an art dealer, his only onscreen appearance.)

Of the two versions of the film presented in the MoC set, I much prefer the European print, which is in remarkably good condition, and features an hypnotic modernist score in which an overripe romantic string solo swells above an off-kilter, repetitive, atonal piano figure, the delirious effect of which is most apt. Neil Kurz’s piano score on the US print is also very fine, though the print itself shows greater evidence of wear. The European print is surely the one I will return to on future viewings, and I’m pleased with its quality.

What the US print does feature, however, is a superb commentary by Casper Tybjerg, whose discussion is as excellent as on his track for Criterion’s Joan. Tybjerg is eloquent on a wide range of topics, including the careers of all the principals, the Kammerspiel form of which the film is an example, and the ongoing controversy about whether or not the relationships in Michael are homosexual in nature. Tybjerg devotes a substantial portion of his commentary to this latter topic, and to describing the life and work of Herman Bang, who wrote the novel on which the film is based. The result is a commentary track that skillfully orchestrates discussion of the various elements of the film, placing it in the contexts of its time and the director’s body of work. The effect is similar to that achieved by David Kalat on his commentary for Criterion’s Testament of Dr. Mabuse, with its rigorous emphasis on text and context.

It’s also great to have the rare Dreyer audio interview from 1965, nicely illustrated, as previously noted. I haven’t spent much time yet with the booklet other than to admire its pleasing appearance. This set is, in fact, beautifully designed and executed throughout, surely an indicator of things to come. In a year of many excellent DVDs, Michael definitely ranks among those at the top of my list.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#12 Post by Lino » Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:22 pm

Great review here:
Michael is an early examination of a subject that continues to interest writers and filmmakers � the power of art and the fire of inspiration. It�s an inspiration that arises out of the very act of being human and communicating with other people and all the emotions that this gives rise to � love, desire, jealousy, betrayal. All these emotions contribute to the richness of life, its reflection in art and its ultimate culmination in death. The relationship of the artist and their inspiration is a complex one and not an easy one to achieve (Jacques Rivette has tackled it marvellously in La Belle Noiseuse) and it is particularly difficult to convey in a silent film. This is where Dreyer�s artistry comes into play. In a parallel subplot, the Duke of Monthieu embarks upon a doomed love affair with a married woman, Alice Adelsskjold. The subplot mirrors the main story in a more conventional playing out of events that culminate in the traditional duel, but it subtly overlays its impression of forbidden love and drama on the main story, depicting a love triangle situation that the main story can only imply. The relationship between the Master and Michael is a more complexly layered one with elements of father and son, artist and muse, master and prot�g� and possibly even suggestions of a homosexual relationship between them. All this is difficult to convey in any film, never mind a silent one, but Dreyer, through the theme of the subplot implies as much as he shows.

User avatar
Richard
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:41 pm
Location: Nederland

#13 Post by Richard » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:53 pm

I love this movie and MoC's dvd but I wonder why it was decided to include two almost identical versions instead of attempting to create one good restoration of the film. Except for the commentary of the American version and the soundtrack of either of the two there's no real reason to revisit the lesser version after choosing a favorite. The cuts are basically the same in both versions so I don't really understand. :?

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#14 Post by peerpee » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:59 pm

The booklet explains that the English intertitles in the David Shepard version are onscreen for a shorter time than the German intertitles are onscreen in the German version. This translates to a 3-4 minute time difference and we didn't want to timestretch one of the scores over one of the versions to make it fit.
there's no real reason to revisit the lesser version after choosing a favorite
But at least you have the choice to choose a favourite. It's very unlikely that this film will receive the full restoration that it deserves in the next 10 or 15 years. Projected sales were nowhere near good enough to fund such a costly restoration, and *actual* sales have only verified this.

User avatar
nyasa
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:05 am
Location: UK

#15 Post by nyasa » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:55 pm

I'd rate this movie as a curiosity rather than a bona fide classic. The story is cliche-ridden and melodramatic, and the mise-en-scene is cluttered - far removed from the stark austerity (the 'whiteness of Dreyer', as Truffaut called it) that would become Dreyer's trademark.

But it's interesting to see one of the master's formative works, and also to catch performances from a trio of familiar actors better known for other roles: Benjamin Christensen (who directed and starred in Haxan), Nora Gregor (who played Christine in Renoir's Rules of the Game), and Walter Slezak (who lost the youthful good looks that gave him the eponymous lead role here, and went on to play the U-boat commander in Hitchcock's Lifeboat).

The DVD presentation can't be faulted. I enjoyed the (as ever) informative commentary by Casper Tybjerg - even if he does have the cadence of Prof Stephen Hawking at times - and the audio interview, in English, with Dreyer himself is fascinating. Good, also, to have the choice between two versions of the film, and two scores.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#16 Post by Tommaso » Fri May 19, 2006 10:27 am

I have watched it just recently, and am quite amazed. Though it does not have the same depth as Dreyer's later works, it carries the 'decadent' atmosphere brilliantly. Fine acting as well.
The DVDs are also very fine, especially the commentary track. I would definitely prefer the German version, though. It looks sharper, and as the booklet already says, the music track is far superior. And here's my one complaint: I was not able to get rid of the English subs on the German version, although using the remote control on my Panasonic player it says there's the option of subtitles 'on' and 'off'. Is this intentional, or just a fault of my system? In any case, it's disturbing if you can read German, and distracts from the feeling of watching something 'original' from the past....

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#17 Post by denti alligator » Fri May 19, 2006 10:37 am

Tommaso, it's a gltich on the DVD, unfortunately. The subs can't be removed.

I wonder if one could rip the DVD to one's hard drive and manipulate it using a DVD authoring program to remove the subs and then re-burn it. I'll try this later today and report back.

addz
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:26 am

#18 Post by addz » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:22 am

I saw this for the first time just last night. I decided to watch the USA print first as it was on the first disc. I didn't really go in to the film expecting much but I became hooked from virtually the start. The print was lovely to look at with a nice contrast to it. Some scenes such as the party/meeting at the beginning and the exhibition towards the end were particularly atmospheric what with Dreyer's brilliant use of light and shadow.

Someone above commentated that the mise-en-scene seemed cluttered - this was something that I felt helped the film as it gave it a grand feeling. There's something about cluttered rooms filled with large objects (in this case paintings, sculptures and large pieces of furniture) which seems to make them feel larger than big empty rooms. There was always somthing interesting to complement the shot too - I particularly liked the fountain.

I thought the actors were quite an interesting looking bunch that would have seemed completely at home in a talkie (were any of them in any sound pictures?) particularly Benjamin Christensen. Something tells me that he would have been a big star if he'd pursued a career in acting. I know he suffered from stage fright when he was a stage actor but does anyone know if this was the case with his film acting? It's a shame really that Michael was his last acting role. Of course, he did make significant contributions to film as a director.

Robert Garrison as Switt also had an interesting look to him and a was constantly reminded of Robin Williams when watching his performance. The women were all good too but none were particularly attractive I felt which meant that Zoret's painting of the countess and subsequent love triangle (Zoret-Michael-Zamikow) were slightly less believable for me than they would have been if someone more conventionally attractive had been cast.
The only area I felt the cast was really let down was, ironically enough, in Michael himself. Walter Slezak just didn't seem like a capable enough actor and I swear that in some places I actually found him slightly annoying me. His hair didn't help either.

The Neil Kurtz score was particularly good on this one. Probably a lot closer to the original score, which I understand consisted of pieces by Tchaikovsky, in that it actually utilises his music in the Swan Lake scene (as you would expect). It may have happened in other scenes but I wasn't aware. This is something that the Pierre Oser score didn't do and, for me, this is why Kurtz's is superior.

The overall package is fairly nice and you can see that MoC, this only their second released at the time, were still finding their feet with regards to their style and the content of their discs. The commentary was interesting but I wish these academic types would refrain form describing what's happening on screen when they have nothing to say. I'm sure most people would rather have blank spots than be told what they are looking at.
The interview with Dreyer was also a nice addition but somewhat redundant as it talks very little, if at all, about Michael. Surely it would have served better as an extra on a future Dreyer disc? But then I suppose that would have left the second disc decidedly empty.

Overall, I can't see a reason to be dissapointed with this package and you certainly get your money's worth with the two prints of the film. Essential for MoC collectors.

Now, with regards to the subtitle glitch on Disc 2 - are there any measures in place to offer a substitute disc without the disc? Has the glitch been removed for future pressings? I ask as I find it slightly frustrating that we are not allowed (because of this) to see the film in its original form and surely this is one of the things that MoC has strived for since the beginning? I remember Nick once saying that they wouldn't licence films from some Japanese companies as they insisted on forced subtitling. Well, this is exactly the case here but it is more of a technical issue.
I'll stop going on and on - is this likely to be rectified any time soon or, as you say Nick re:sales, is it unlikely that the mistake will be corrected?

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

#19 Post by peerpee » Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:51 am

The authoring house we used for MICHAEL (back in 2004) could not guarantee that the subtitles would be removeable. I have no idea why, but it was the authoring software they were using.

This was the first DVD I worked on, and needless to say, we never used them again.

The subtitles are player-generated, so if you have a computer it's possible to rip the disc and trash the subtitles, and burn a disc that does not have subtitles. If you can't do this, I'd be happy to send you a DVD-R.

Sales for this set have been dire, unfortunately, so we won't be reauthoring as it's rather costly to do that.

addz
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:26 am

#20 Post by addz » Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:56 am

peerpee wrote:The authoring house we used for MICHAEL (back in 2004) could not guarantee that the subtitles would be removeable. I have no idea why, but it was the authoring software they were using.

This was the first DVD I worked on, and needless to say, we never used them again.
Some of the authoring houses you used in the early days seemed to be pretty poor and from what you've told us fairly clueless! You had one case where they didn't know the difference between Interlaced and Progressive and then there's this. Thank God you've found some reliable companies at last that know what it means to create quality discs.
peerpee wrote:The subtitles are player-generated, so if you have a computer it's possible to rip the disc and trash the subtitles, and burn a disc that does not have subtitles.
There's something to add to the "to do" list this weekend.
peerpee wrote:Sales for this set have been dire, unfortunately, so we won't be reauthoring as it's rather costly to do that.
That really is a shame as I personally felt this was one of the best films in the series. I know I'll definitely be recommending it to people to try and get the word out there.

Let's hope that once MoC have picked up some more loyal followers they'll want to go back and revisit some of the earlier films in the series.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#21 Post by denti alligator » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:00 pm

peerpee wrote:The subtitles are player-generated, so if you have a computer it's possible to rip the disc and trash the subtitles, and burn a disc that does not have subtitles. If you can't do this, I'd be happy to send you a DVD-R.
This is great to know and really solves the problem. Since the film will easily fit on one DVD-R without compression, and since DVD-Rs are dirt cheap these days it almost makes the authoring flaw moot.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#22 Post by tryavna » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:20 pm

peerpee wrote:Sales for this set have been dire, unfortunately, so we won't be reauthoring as it's rather costly to do that.
How sad! Well, I can promise you that I'll be buying a copy very soon. I've been putting this one off in lieu of BFI's Dreyer releases, but now that I've got a bunch of vouchers for CD-Wow, I can splurge a bit.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#23 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:48 pm

Jack Rabbit Slim wrote:
peerpee wrote:Sales for this set have been dire, unfortunately, so we won't be reauthoring as it's rather costly to do that.
That really is a shame as I personally felt this was one of the best films in the series. I know I'll definitely be recommending it to people to try and get the word out there.

Let's hope that once MoC have picked up some more loyal followers they'll want to go back and revisit some of the earlier films in the series.
That is a pity - I know of at least one satisfied customer(!), it is an excellent package even with forced subtitles. So far there isn't a film in the collection that I haven't already got or have on my wish list - the one exception is Sunrise and that is only because I got that Fox Studio Classics box with Sunrise as the bonus disc. I'm especially looking forward to seeing another film with Peter in, since I'm only familiar with his appearance in Ran, and am excited about the Robert Flaherty box set as the Home Vision releases had been getting near the top of my to buy list before I found out about the MoC boxset.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

#24 Post by Sloper » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:40 am

Sorry for reviving such an old, dead thread, but I just blind-bought this after much wavering, and wanted to say thank you to Nick and everyone at MoC for putting together such a fantastic package. Considering its relative obscurity, its unprepossessing title, the handsome but unedifying photo on the cover, and the fact that this was one of MoC's earliest releases, I guess its 'dire' sales aren't too much of a mystery. But anyone remotely interested in silent cinema should snap this up: it ranks among the best of Murnau, Lang, Eisenstein, Dreyer himself, etc. And MoC's presentation of it couldn't be bettered.

I feel like I could spend the rest of my life watching this film. In a way I can understand some people thinking it doesn't have the depth of Dreyer's later work, purely because I found it a lot more accessible than, for instance, Joan of Arc, Vampyr or Day of Wrath, all of which it's taken me a long time to 'get into' - and perhaps that's because Michael does have a more immediately engaging story, and a much less austere mise en scene. But I've watched it four times now, and every time it seems more complex and more profound. It's the kind of film where crucial plot developments are communicated through the smallest facial gestures or juxtapositions of shots; you could watch it frame by frame and still be absolutely riveted.

This is the great thing about Tybjerg's commentary: like a really good academic lecture, it sends you away with a hundred more questions than you had before, and with a desire to watch the film again, to read the novel, to find out more. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a readily available English translation of Herman Bang's novel - anyone want to correct me on this? I didn't feel Tybjerg was simply describing what happened on screen; in fact, in contrast to many such commentaries, his was for the most part not directly related to the scene on hand, though he has a wonderful way, a bit like Ginette Vincendeau, of arranging his topics so as to discuss them at a point in the film when they are particularly suggestive. Like a good score, it fits each scene in subtle and thought-provoking ways.

Oser's score was so perfect for the film that I wasn't expecting much from Neal Kurz, but in fact the two scores are equally impressive, definitely some of the best silent film music I've ever heard. Kurz is more 'conventional', more self-effacing, but his music has a classical sophistication rarely heard in any film scores, let alone ones composed for silent films. I don't know Tchaikovsky beyond Swan Lake, but even if Kurz's whole score is, so to speak, 'adapted' from already existing music, the pieces are beautifully chosen, and complement the film just as well as Oser's jarring, dissonant score. Kurz's has a kind of smooth, flowing quality, giving the film a more polished, lyrical and decadent feel, and in not drawing attention to itself it leaves the viewer free to concentrate on the images themselves. So, although my eyes aren't good enough to distinguish much between the two prints (I think I prefer the European one), I'll definitely be revisiting both versions of the film, and am very glad MoC decided to include both in this package.

Walter Slezak's performance has been rather under-appreciated. Contrary to what Tybjerg says in his commentary, to me this film is as much about Michael as it is about Zoret, and Christensen's performance depends a great deal on that of Slezak. Pick any shot of Michael in the film, pause it and look closely at his face: one of my favourites is the profile shot of him peering at Zoret's final masterpiece, while Zoret looks anxiously at him. There are so many layers of feeling in Slezak's face: the frustrated, jealous artist to whose talent Zoret is ironically blind, the hypersensitive child in need of a love which his adopted father is incapable of providing, the sadistic lover punishing Zoret via his art - the only medium through which this self-absorbed 'Master' can feel or express human emotions. There is a great deal more to this relationship than just the 'kindly older man betrayed by spoilt brat'; indeed it is on the complexity of this relationship that the whole story depends, and Slezak's wonderfully expressive performance is an essential counterpoint to Christensen's monumental portrait of a man being torn apart from inside.

And has there ever been a film with such a tantalisingly ambiguous ending? What is Nora Gregor looking at in the final shot? What does it have to do with what Christensen 'saw' in the previous scene ('true love', whatever that is)?
Last edited by Sloper on Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
markhax
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:42 pm
Contact:

#25 Post by markhax » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:43 am

Sloper wrote:Sorry for reviving such an old, dead thread, but I just blind-bought this after much wavering, and wanted to say thank you to Nick and everyone at MoC for putting together such a fantastic package. . . . anyone remotely interested in silent cinema should snap this up – it ranks among the best of Murnau, Lang, Eisenstein, Dreyer himself, etc…
I quite agree about the film. I read that Dreyer considered it second only to 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' among his silent films. It is especially rich and subtle in the way that objects figure in the transactions between the characters--the painting Zoret did of Michael and gives to him, the English glasses, the crucifix in the studio and on the wall in the final death scene, etc.

I read that a newly restored version was presented at the Berlin film festival about two years ago. I wonder if it will be released by anyone on DVD?

Post Reply