Faust (1926) directed by F. W. Murnau

Murnau's Faust is a masterpiece, like most of his other films. It’s not perfect and has some issues that many films of this era have when seen by modern filmgoers. Visual mastery is NOT one of those issues. I have long wanted to do some art based on this film but as you can see by the images in this post... what could I do that could compare in any way? The upper image shows how the movie influenced Disney's "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence in "Fantasia". The lower image could easily be a painting by one of the great masters but it is a single image from the film. The quality and texture of the fim along with the lens choices and amazing compositions of Murnau look like paintings come to life. 

The story is well known and has been made a million times since. Mephistopheles makes a bet with the arch angel Michael that if he can turn a man as good as Faust then the earth will be his exclusive domain. He gives him the power to heal which does not go as well as planned, when Faust finds he cannot heal someone wearing a crucifix because these healing powers come esentially form the devil. He also gets his youth back and this is where the film starts to go a little wrong. Far too much time is spent on Faust basically whoring around and falling instantly in love, as Mephistopheles (played by the always fantastic Emil Jennings)  makes sure nothing end well. Jennings performance is scary at points and reminds me of Divne on other points as he infuses an over the top almost drag sensibility in the lighter sections. The director's film "The Man who Laughs" also suffers a bit from having a start that is impossible to top and movies inot a more traditional story that while still great isn't as engaging as the intro to the story. 

It's almost a 100 year old film but I won't spoil the end except to say I found it unsatisfying and a hollow victory. Won't stop me from watching this again and again though. 

 

Silent Summer: The last laugh (1924) FW Murnau

 Can a Murnau film with Emil Jennings go wrong? Nope, but it can sure go right. This is the height of silent cinema. The acting is outstanding, the sets are breathtaking, the cinematography is draws you in and keeps you in.

The story is very simple, hard to believe such a good film is based around something that should be mundane. A doorman loses his job at a famous hotel. That is basically it. He is deemed too old by his cold hearted boss and demoted to washroom attendant. When his neighbours find out they mock him and doubt he was ever the doorman and was just trying to make himself seem important. Jennings gives his typical top drawer performance and brings humour and pathos to the character. 

This is spoiler (the film is 100 years old this year but I doubt too many know it now). 

At the end, the humiliated doorman reads in the newspaper that he inherited a fortune from  a patron who died in his arms in the hotel washroom and shares his wealth by going back t the hotel and treating the staff to generous tips. Especially the night watchman who was the only one there who teated him kindly. 

This is one of those films that will amaze anyone not familiar with the silent era and think they are all overacted, sped up comedies. Its hard to imagine that the street shots are actually sets, they have a realism you don't expect and the editing, effects and compositions are far beyond what anyone would think of as "early cinema".