Movies are generally praised when the characters are multidimensional with gray blurred morality spaces. That sounds fine, after all it is a better reflection of real life compared to perfect divine heroes and pure innocent girls.
But not every story can function within a gray morality space.(think of fairy tales and simple stories about love, good vs evil and ...) . A common problem with films after the mid to late 1910s is the "grayification" of characters in these simple stories, combine that with how preachy films at the time are, you end up with tons of films that don't actually deliver the seemingly simple message of the story and only come off as hypocrites.
Take this film for example, imagine being rich for god knows how many years, moaning over a boy while your mom is slaving away. Imagine putting yourself in this moral high ground while condescendingly throwing coins for people and constantly showing off your success and riches and overall, acting like a complete b**** and all of that is ok because some boy couldn't leave his home to come with you to paris. WHAT A PIECE OF S***, am i right?! Doesn't he know that's a sin. He's being unfaithful and that's THE worst crime. Unless he's being unfaithful to his fiance in my favor, then it's ok, it's beautiful actually since, didn't you know? I'm the main character, not her. One should fight for love after all, until he gets married, then he should torture himself and his wife and grow children in a house without love until he dies.
Saying the story doesn't make sense and the preaching is hypocritical is really an understatement and to think, this film isn't even close to being the most nonsensical "grayified" sermon I've seen. DeMille's filmography alone provides more case studies than you'll ever need.
As for the cinematography, it is so standard and typical of the time, it's boring to even think about. The only thing it has going for it is that the duration isn't long enough to make the film itself boring.
I also don't understand the praisals of Greta Garbo's "subtle" performance. She lashes out and laughs manically like a teenager roleplaying as a pirate. I personally don't see any subtlety here and the other characters are all too hollow for me to expect anything from the actors.
Another praisal of the film is for the torrent sequence. I tend not to discuss these scenes since whenever i complain "that's obvious cardboard/plastic/clay!" i'm greeted with "it was amazing for it's time" or "people back then couldn't tell its just cardboard". I personally am not 100 years old and can't tell what people back then would think. There are many silent films that don't suffer from these and by juxtaposition alone people should've been able to tell but i don't know. As for this scene in particular, the scales are obviously wrong and the boat is transparent. I leave the "what people in 1920s would think?" to you.
Thanks for reading.
But not every story can function within a gray morality space.(think of fairy tales and simple stories about love, good vs evil and ...) . A common problem with films after the mid to late 1910s is the "grayification" of characters in these simple stories, combine that with how preachy films at the time are, you end up with tons of films that don't actually deliver the seemingly simple message of the story and only come off as hypocrites.
Take this film for example, imagine being rich for god knows how many years, moaning over a boy while your mom is slaving away. Imagine putting yourself in this moral high ground while condescendingly throwing coins for people and constantly showing off your success and riches and overall, acting like a complete b**** and all of that is ok because some boy couldn't leave his home to come with you to paris. WHAT A PIECE OF S***, am i right?! Doesn't he know that's a sin. He's being unfaithful and that's THE worst crime. Unless he's being unfaithful to his fiance in my favor, then it's ok, it's beautiful actually since, didn't you know? I'm the main character, not her. One should fight for love after all, until he gets married, then he should torture himself and his wife and grow children in a house without love until he dies.
Saying the story doesn't make sense and the preaching is hypocritical is really an understatement and to think, this film isn't even close to being the most nonsensical "grayified" sermon I've seen. DeMille's filmography alone provides more case studies than you'll ever need.
As for the cinematography, it is so standard and typical of the time, it's boring to even think about. The only thing it has going for it is that the duration isn't long enough to make the film itself boring.
I also don't understand the praisals of Greta Garbo's "subtle" performance. She lashes out and laughs manically like a teenager roleplaying as a pirate. I personally don't see any subtlety here and the other characters are all too hollow for me to expect anything from the actors.
Another praisal of the film is for the torrent sequence. I tend not to discuss these scenes since whenever i complain "that's obvious cardboard/plastic/clay!" i'm greeted with "it was amazing for it's time" or "people back then couldn't tell its just cardboard". I personally am not 100 years old and can't tell what people back then would think. There are many silent films that don't suffer from these and by juxtaposition alone people should've been able to tell but i don't know. As for this scene in particular, the scales are obviously wrong and the boat is transparent. I leave the "what people in 1920s would think?" to you.
Thanks for reading.