Svengali (1931)
"Svengali" is a strange strange film, half nightmare, half plain old German Expressionism thrown into an inventive Warner Bros. set. It's amazing at its best, and the set design and photography both got Oscar nominations. The plot that gets built up of increasingly new elements, comic outsiders (Englishmen who believe in bathing every day) and a overtly beautiful blonde model and her apparent love match (they have just met), until the crux of it clarifies--the title character is a madman who can hypnotize people at will.
John Barrymore in his archly long, dramatic is a creep, appropriately. When he hypnotizes, his eyes turn to these large glowing white orbs. He has fallen in love with a model and starts to control her, which her fiancé only gradually realizes. Other people just find Svengali a quirky artistic type, and see no harm in him at first.
The setting is odd--clearly shot on a studio lot rather than a real Parisian artists colony, it nonetheless is meant to be some kind of rambling set of rooms that are more or less attached, or near each other. For the whole first half, the main characters never really leave the irregular, sometimes offkilter chambers, which look like there were adapted from "Caligari" itself. The light and the framing, and the interesting very shallow depth of field, combine to make a mysterious and really beautiful effect.
The Barrymores, as a group, are amazing, but their theatricality, especially John's, doesn't always transfer well to modern movies. In a way, it's this leading man who cuts into the disarming surrealism and horror overall, simply because he's so campy. This might be just a matter of changing tastes, because his effect reminds me rather a lot of Bela Lugosi in "Dracula" which was released the same year (a few months earlier). The story of Dracula is more archetypal and wonderful for the ages, but in my view (I've seen both movies recently) this is much better filmed. The photography, lighting, and blocking (the way the actors move) are more fluid and involved. Archie Mayo, the director, has a handful of completely wonderful films to his up and down career (click on his name to see). As much as this one has some obvious and forced sections, and a plot that doesn't quite involve the viewer as you would hope, it's a really well made, well constructed movie. For 1931 it's sometimes a pure wonder.
"Svengali" is a strange strange film, half nightmare, half plain old German Expressionism thrown into an inventive Warner Bros. set. It's amazing at its best, and the set design and photography both got Oscar nominations. The plot that gets built up of increasingly new elements, comic outsiders (Englishmen who believe in bathing every day) and a overtly beautiful blonde model and her apparent love match (they have just met), until the crux of it clarifies--the title character is a madman who can hypnotize people at will.
John Barrymore in his archly long, dramatic is a creep, appropriately. When he hypnotizes, his eyes turn to these large glowing white orbs. He has fallen in love with a model and starts to control her, which her fiancé only gradually realizes. Other people just find Svengali a quirky artistic type, and see no harm in him at first.
The setting is odd--clearly shot on a studio lot rather than a real Parisian artists colony, it nonetheless is meant to be some kind of rambling set of rooms that are more or less attached, or near each other. For the whole first half, the main characters never really leave the irregular, sometimes offkilter chambers, which look like there were adapted from "Caligari" itself. The light and the framing, and the interesting very shallow depth of field, combine to make a mysterious and really beautiful effect.
The Barrymores, as a group, are amazing, but their theatricality, especially John's, doesn't always transfer well to modern movies. In a way, it's this leading man who cuts into the disarming surrealism and horror overall, simply because he's so campy. This might be just a matter of changing tastes, because his effect reminds me rather a lot of Bela Lugosi in "Dracula" which was released the same year (a few months earlier). The story of Dracula is more archetypal and wonderful for the ages, but in my view (I've seen both movies recently) this is much better filmed. The photography, lighting, and blocking (the way the actors move) are more fluid and involved. Archie Mayo, the director, has a handful of completely wonderful films to his up and down career (click on his name to see). As much as this one has some obvious and forced sections, and a plot that doesn't quite involve the viewer as you would hope, it's a really well made, well constructed movie. For 1931 it's sometimes a pure wonder.