Review #1782: Blind Husbands.
Cast:
Sam De Grasse (Dr. Robert Armstrong, The Husband), Francelia Billington (Margaret Armstrong, The Wife), Erich von Stroheim (Lt. Erich von Steuben), Gibson Gowland (Silent Sepp), Fay Holderness (The 'Vamp' Waitress), Ruby Kendrick (A Village Blossom), Valerie Germonprez (Honeymooner), Jack Perrin (Honeymooner), Richard Cummings (The Village Physician), Louis Fitzroy (The Village Priest), William De Vaull (Man from 'Home'), Jack Mathis (Man from 'Home'), and Percy Challenger (Man from 'Home') Directed by Erich von Stroheim.
Review:
Well, we've heard of a few films that had a director that also served as writer. But there are fewer that had a director-writer-producer, you must say. Nay, one that might be even harder to find is a director-writer-producer-star adapting his own book into a film. And yet here we are with Blind Husbands (1919), likely one of the most curious debuts of a Hollywood director for the next several years: Erich von Stroheim. He was a character like no other when it came to showmanship, particularly when it came to his journey to moviemaking. He was born in Austria to middle-class parents (operators of a millinery) as Erich Stroeheim. Not interested in the life of business or merchants, he first did volunteer work in military transport with horses and wagons, but he did not last long due to physicality (incidentally, his reported height was 5'6). In 1909, he sailed to the States and identified himself as Count Erich Oswald Hans Carl Maria von Stroheim und Nordenwall. Dubious nobility aside, he first worked as a gift wrapper before eventually moving to the West Coast, utilizing his knowledge with horses in a riding academy in California. He soon found himself in the company of D.W. Griffith, starting with bit parts in the mid 1910s before moving onto Prussian roles late in the era (earning the nickname "The Man You Love to Hate", incidentally). His knowledge of military detail helped get him work in assistant directing, and he soon found an in when it came to a desire to direct for himself, doing so with Universal (headed by Carl Laemmle) in an agreement to star, direct and write alongside designing the sets and editing (at $200 a week in total). Von Stroheim would be noted for his lavish attempts at filmmaking that hindered his overall output: he made a total of nine films, with a considerable amount modified by the studio (most notably with Greed), for which two are lost and two others are missing their original versions; his last directorial film was in 1933, but he persisted in acting until his death in 1957.
This was an adaptation of his novel The Pinnacle. The movie was a considerable success for the fledging studio, even if von Stroheim was probably more irritated at the fact that the movie title was changed (strange, considering the fact that pinnacle in geology refers to an isolated indivdual column of rock in the shape of a shaft/spire). It is a curious debut, an offbeat fantasy film for its main name that looms over everyone with an interesting perspective about lust through the eyes of the folks at the center of it. Consider the fact that there have been plenty of love triangle films over the years, and consider the perspective of the adulterer in the middle of the action. Sure, adultery is a terrible thing, but emotional loss of a spouse beforehand is also a terrible thing to witness. Vulnerability is a terrible thing to have, whether spent in the mountains with oneself or spent with a mix of diminsihing hope and a manipulator willing to take advantage of it. Who is surprised to see von Storheim as the big presence? He glistens in self-importance in a way that makes him both detestable and the prime curiosity that could almost make him draw pity. Of course, the shot of him with a a big grin (and distinct scar) along with a pipe and hands pointing at the camera certainly lend attention. He isn't exactly playing a Don Juan type figure of seduction, you see, instead playing it with flattery to go with impeccable dress sense that works to his advantage in terms of appeal for the time. Besides, sometimes it does help to be a villain to stick out in silent roles, since one might recognize De Grasse for his handful of adversarial roles more so than this film (of course, he was also an early Canadian presence in film for two decades). He does fine here, benign to what is needed in terms of charm when paired with Billington until he is needed to match with von Stroheim in the climax. This ended up being the most famous role for Billington, who acted in a variety of films that are fairly obscure despite her acting for a variety of studios. At any rate, she does well here, playing the vulnerability to the lingering camera with the right emphasis. By the time the film is closing its 91-minute run-time, it has managed to make a useful drama on the perils of desire and neglect that would surely compare with the middle-tier of a growing silent era that would only continue to drive interest in the next decade of the 1920s, with von Stroheim playing a distinct part in that regard.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Welcome to 2022! Year 12 of Movie Night starts here with a tremendous theme for the first month of the year - Movie Night: New Directors. Yes, you heard that right, Movie Night will feature a variety of directors not previously featured before from various eras and countries.
Next Time: Sky High (1922).
