Review #1732: The Magician.
Cast:
Alice Terry (Margaret Dauncey), Paul Wegener (Oliver Haddo), Iván Petrovich (Dr. Arthur Burdon), Firmin Gémier (Dr. Porhoet), Gladys Hamer (Susie Boyd), Henry Wilson (Haddo's Servant), and Hubert I. Stowitts (Dancing Faun) Directed by Rex Ingram.
Review:
Admittedly, certain names fade in and fade out from the annuals of film history, regardless of whatever reputation is meant to precede them, particularly for folks in the silent era. As such, it is always a pleasure to reach another name in that particular era, and it just so happens that this director's path crossed in the lines of horror with an already familiar face. Rex Ingram was borm in Ireland in 1892 and emigrated to America at the age of 19. While he studied sculpture at Yale University, he soon moved to film in the early 1910s, dabbling in acting work before becoming a producer-director that made his debut with The Great Problem (1916). His first notable film came with his shift to Metro Pictures (eventually known as MGM after mergers) with The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921). In 1924, tired of studio influence, he moved to France and started his own little studio in the region of Nice, and Mare Nostrum (1926) was the first feature he made in this voluntary exile. The slow demise of the silent era led to Ingram shifting his attention away from directing, with his final film being his only sound feature in Baroud (1932) before he shifted to sculpting; Ingram died in 1950 at the age of 58. He was noted by contemporary filmmakers as one of the best, most notably being called the world's greatest by Erich von Stroheim and being called one of the four top creative folks in Hollywood by an MGM chief; this also included his influence with a young Michael Powell, who worked various odd-jobs at the studio (which included a small spot here in comic relief), with Powell later calling him one of his biggest influences.
Until 2011, one couldn't find the film on DVD, although for several years it had been shown in film festivals and on television after having been thought to have been lost (believed as such by books describing it as lost that were written in the late 1960s), so it is worthy to get to enjoy its 88 minute run-time un-intruded. It is entirely possible to see where Ingram might have lost his interest in filmmaking when the opening credit lists him as "Supervisor" (incidentally, this was his fourth-to-last feature). But hey, making films in your own little studio can't be all bad, and this film does quite well in making little atmospheric moments count, particularly since this is the first and only time with Paul Wegener in an American film. As such, this is an adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's 1908 novel of the same name (reportedly, occultist/magician/poet/painter Aleister Crowley served as the model for the title character, and Crowley later accused Maugham of plagiarism). Sure, one could say horror films in America became prevalent with the dawn of sound, but that would seem to erase the seeds that were grown with films in the silent era, whether with The Phantom of the Opera (1925) or this one, for example. Think about it: we have a title character that likes to command folks with his piercing eyes while dabbling in kidnapping and body snatching with a director that makes things look nice. Hell, he even has his own laboratory with a hunchback and the ability to help show someone a version of Hell as some sort of orgy of the damned in imagery. Of course, the film is considerably different than the source material, which actually involved the plan to use innocent blood to create life actually being accomplished, albeit with differing results. Undeniably, the spotlight shines mostly on Wegener, who certainly had quite the reputation from the cast and crew (Powell stated later in his memoirs that Wegener had just one idea and expression as if "to open his huge eyes even wider, until he looked about as frightened as a bullfrog."). If he is thought of a outdated ham, then it is the credit of Wegener that it is generally welcomed (at least, here anyway) to play it like that, because who doesnt see that coming here? With stuff about hypnotism and title cards saying how he looks like he came out of a melodrama, he plays the adversary right down to the entertainment bone, and he draws all of the interest (perhaps to the detriment of his stars). Let's be honest: how many old horror movies do you remember besides the guy who played either the hero or the villain? That isn't to say Terry is forgettable, but as long as things seem fair and no one tries to look silly, you generally have the makings of a fine silent film already. The folks in the cast do just fine, although the best sequence with anyone is shared with Wegener, such as the case with a snake scene where he claims to be able to withstand a venomous bite; somehow, they aren't pleased with the result, mostly because some poor soul gets bitten right after and dies. The scenes at the end with the lab are pretty interesting to look at, as if the clichés about a dark and stormy night in a lab all sprang from this (or perhaps needed a few years...). As a whole, it is the bombast of how Wegener draws one in that keeps the movie afloat, and he does a worthy job with what is needed that plays to the curious stage without being broken down by it. While it may have languished in obscurity for a time, there has never been a more perfect occasion to seek this one out, a fair player in the building blocks of American horror in all of its curiosities of star and director.
Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: Dracula, 90 years later.
