The Hands of Orlac.

Review #1896: The Hands of Orlac.

Cast: 

Conrad Veidt (Paul Orlac), Alexandra Sorina (Yvonne Orlac), Fritz Kortner (Nera), Carmen Cartellieri (Regine), Hans Homma (Dr. Serra), Fritz Strassny (Paul's father), and Paul Askonas (Servant) Directed by Robert Wiene (#261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari)

Review: 

If you remember, Robert Wiene directed one of the most notable expressionist movies of its time. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), with Conrad Veidt as one of the stars, is also one of the most notable horror features in the pre-1930 era, when horror was in loose definition for films. The German-born Wiene got into acting in the early 20th century before directing and writing by 1913, with Fear [Furcht] (1917) also serving as an early horror feature to go along with Genuine (1920). Wiene continued to make films on a regular basis until 1933, when Nazis took power in Germany. He made one further film in exile before dying of cancer in 1938 at the age of 65. This film (originally released as Orlacs Hände) was released as a production from Austria as an adaptation of Les Mains d'Orlac, a 1920 French novel by Maurice Renard. Two further films were adapted from the book: Mad Love (1935) and The Hands of Orlac (1960), although there have been a number of unofficial adaptations that cribbed elements from the book such as Hands of a Stranger (1962) and Body Parts (1991).

If one is thinking they are going to get a strange and eerie horror feature involving a man wondering what to make of his newly transplanted hands...you will get something, but one should temper their expectations. It is more of a psychological feature with the barest of horror elements (while not being an Expressionist work either), moving at a pace that will see just how one's patience goes on the strength of one good actor and well-enough cinematography for 90 minutes. Veidt is the best part of the film because of how he elevates what would be a bland character in lesser hands and makes it one with tortured patience and vulnerability that keeps you invested in seeing where the pain lies with him. He may seem a bit overwrought when it comes to looking at silent performances, but it works with what needs to be shown here. Kortner makes a sinister showing to make the buildup more than just a glacier-pace, because there isn't exactly much to really describe about the movie about "killer" hands besides a grouchy parent, since we know that our lead isn't exactly a killer (but Kortner doesn't have too much time anyway). This kind of overshadows the others such as a withering Sorina or Strassny being an old nut, but at least the movie is respectably done from start to finish. The train wreck that is in the beginning of the film is handled in sprawling detail I do think the second half works a bit better than the first when it comes to getting down to business, but its attempts at a tidy conclusion does seem a bit too convenient (strangely, Berlin had one quibble in its censorship authority: not the idea of a guy going nuts due to having "killer" hands, but a sequence talking about making molds of fingerprints from wax). So yes, the movie is a psych-out scare rather than a body count movie, and that will work out for others better than others when it comes to imagination and patience, and I think it ends up doing just fine in that regard. It may not be as particularly creeping as its title might suggest, but you could still have a decent time regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, here's a blueprint of the month to guess on: the decades of the 1910s to the 2010s gets one film featured to review before the cycle repeats itself again (of course, the 1910s may be hard to repeat...)

So yes, a film from the 1920s gets followed by one from the 1930s, so enjoy the guessing.

Pandora's Box (1929).

Review #1329: Pandora's Box.

Cast: 
Louise Brooks (Lulu), Fritz Kortner (Dr. Ludwig Schön), Francis Lederer (Alwa Schön), Carl Goetz (Schigolch), Krafft-Raschig (Rodrigo Quast), Alice Roberts (Countess Augusta Geschwitz), Daisy D'ora (Charlotte Marie Adelaide von Zarnikow), Gustav Diessl (Jack the Ripper), Michael von Newlinsky (Marquis Casti-Piani), and Sigfried Arno (The Stage Manager) Directed by G. W. Pabst.

Review: 
One could apply the cliche that any year is a turning point for film, or say that it was a year of big change. To add another cliche, 1929 was a special year for film in numerous aspects. The era of the silent films was soon to be a thing of the past (or at the very least wasn't as popularly used). Musicals were now getting to be a trend to look for in the rushes (along with making sure they can say the words in the microphone without trouble). The first Academy Awards were presented by presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on May 16 (with winners announced months before the event), where it had silent films regarded as the most outstanding and unique (Wings and Sunrise, respectively), which wouldn't happen again for over 80 years. But hey, every decade brings in and lets out film stars onto the screen (some on their own terms), and one who burned just as bright as others in terms of electric presence was Louise Brooks. Brooks had spent the earlier parts of the decade in dance, having joined the Denishawn School of Dancing and Related Arts company at 15 in 1922, although she was dismissed two years later. Her work with the Ziegfeld Follies (noted for their revue productions on Broadway since 1907) led to interest from Paramount Pictures and a contract in 1925. In the four years prior to Pandora's Box, she had appeared in thirteen films (the last one being The Canary Murder Case, a film she refused to do sound re-takes for). She made three films in Europe (the last being Miss Europe in 1930), but she appeared in just six more films in the following eight years, which she had attributed to be informally blacklisted from Paramount (declining an offer to star in The Public Enemy did not help matters either). As for Pabst (born in Austria), he had begun his film career in 1923 with The Treasure, had a knack for developing talent as a important director during the Weimer Republic. He had directed films with actresses who would become stars, such as Greta Garbo and Leni Riefenstahl. The film was based on two plays (generally referred to as the Lulu cycle) from German playwright Frank Wedekind - Erdgeist (Earth Spirit) and Die Büchse der Pandora, which were performed in 1895 and 1904, respectively. The two plays also served as the basis for an opera by Alban Berg that would premiere in 1937, and the first play had been adapted for film in 1923.

In any case, it would seem the choice by Pabst to use Brooks (with Marlene Dietrich as a second choice) paid off in the long run. Who else could pull off such an exotic and absorbent performance? It may be a silent role, but she sure likes someone doing a modern performance, one that stood out from other performers of the era with such magnetic desperate energy that compels attention each minute she is on screen, driving chemistry (and ruin) with her co-stars in a frank and honest manner, which still resonates after over nine decades and plenty of dramas across the world, whether silent (like this one) or not. She just has the energy to be oneself in passion without needing a trick in hand. Kortner and the others follow along with fair results, where one can see themselves drawn in to a spark from their eyes without needing to fall back to sentimentality, which go well for Lederer and Goetz. It clicks on its sensibilities with an eye for the crowd without needing to overload the senses, where shock for a scene (such as its death scenes) doesn't seem inauthentic. For such a transgressive film, it is no surprise that there were numerous versions shown in theaters with notable edits. In one version, Lederer's character is changed from being Kortner's son to his secretary. In another, the ending gets rid of Jack the Ripper and has the main character join the Salvation Army. In any case, the film has managed to survive to find in the market of curiosity at 133 minutes alongside other films of its ilk, a winner for the 1920s that maintains standing after several decades on the heels (and bob haircut) of its main star, who endures now on the basis of work abroad like this - and for good reason.

Next Time: As it turns out, 1929 is a triple-header extravaganza. What better way to move forward with seeing the progression of film than The Broadway Melody? 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.