Cast:
Emil Jannings (hotel doorman), Maly Delschaft (his niece), Max Hiller (her bridegroom), Emilie Kurz (bridegroom's aunt), Hans Unterkircher (hotel manager), Olaf Storm (young guest), Hermann Vallentin (guest with pot belly), Georg John (night watchman), and Emmy Wyda (thin neighbor) Directed by F. W. Murnau (#256 - Nosferatu, #499 - Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, #1335 - Tabu: A Story of the South Seas, #1885 - City Girl, and #2002 - The Haunted Castle)
Review:
The Weimer Republic had plenty of choices for people to look upon in its era, whether it was part of the "kammerspielfilm" or not. A cursory look into it states that it was a type of film involving intimate portrayals of the lower middle class. In the years of the Republic that came from the end of World War I, there was a great need for films, which would lead to various efforts from studios that saw various directors make their mark, whether that involved directors such as F.W. Murnau or (future "fellow traveler") Leni Riefenstahl. Murnau had made his debut in 1919, but none of his first six films survive in complete form. He directed for less than two decades due to his untimely death in 1931, but he cultivated such a curious line of work that have distinct qualities to them. The line of connection here with Erich Pommer is not particularly surprising, since he had been a head of production for two studios in Decla Film and UFA and produced a handful of Murnau films. Incidentally, Carl Mayer, who had written for a handful of Murnau films such as The Haunted Castle (1921), wrote the screenplay for this film (to say nothing of the connection of Mayer the writer and Pommer the producer with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari). The film title [Der letzte Mann] actually translates to "The Last Man", and I am curious as how one knows it as "Laugh" (the German word for that is Lachen instead). In 1955, the film was remade in West Germany with Harald Braun directing. Jannings and Murnau would work together again with the UFA-distributed Tartuffe (1926) and Faust (1926).
Perhaps it isn't surprising that Jannings (actor of his time and future propagandist) was cast for this role, which mainly allows him to control the screen without any thought for worrying about title cards. It is his own show to chew for pathos to go along with the camerawork from none other than Karl Freund. How can one resist the urge to look up how one can get such shots from a camera that apparently ranged from tying it to Freund's chest on a bicycle to suspending it in a basket from a bridge. All of this comes together for a curious film to view in the lens of seeing the rise and fall of a man in uniform within dignity. In some ways, the man may only really serve as a man when he wears the uniform of a great power (corporation, or perhaps empire?), if you think about it. Jannings accomplishes what is required in showing just how much a man can come and go when one finds their wellbeing challenged, one that might as well be original poster boy for "you are not your job". The camera can make him loom as a man of his job and also surround him like a man and a microscope once the uniform washes away from him. As such, 90 minutes is an interesting time to spend looking at such interesting shots that tells a fable that is generally effective in sobering flow. Well, I was semi-true in saying there were no title cards...because one does pop up near the end that is different from the usual title: "Here our story should really end, for in actual life, the forlorn old man would have little to look forward to but death. The author took pity on him, however, and provided quite an improbable epilogue." The ending is up to you to interpret beyond just labeling it as "the happy part", but I suppose one should consider the sticking point that someone made (whether it was Murnau or a boardroom executive, take your pick) that apparently the washroom attendant makes more than a doorman. Go with the flow or don't, I suppose, because maybe the real laugh is the one had at the expense of the one who thinks films require this type of ending. At any rate, those who want to see just how much one should look upon filmmaking beyond a passive interest would have a worthy time here with a curious and involving feature of camerawork in the measure of a man.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
Next time: Dersu Uzala.
No comments:
Post a Comment