User Reviews

While the plot of "Mockery" is simple, the characterizations are complex, and not just because of Chaney's acting. German producer Erich Pommer and Danish director Benjamin Christensen brought a European aesthetic to this film; the same aesthetic F. W. Murnau brought to an equally simple story, "Sunrise." It's no wonder the film did not generate much buzz in America where studios pandered to the popular taste for melodrama and one dimensional characters - good guys and bad. The characters in "Mockery" are not that easy to define. They are real humans capable of compassion and cruelty, difficult to stereotype.

Chaney always thrived on direction that emphasized complex characterization. But in this film Barbara Bedford (whose only other notable performance was as Cora Munro in Maurice Tourneur's "The Last of the Mohicans") fares almost as well. Both give sensitive performances, she as a countess in disguise dodging revolutionaries in the Siberian forests of 1918, and Chaney at his best as a mentally slow but goodhearted peasant named Sergei, who helps her. The countess assures Sergei they will always be friends. She later proves to be less a friend, and more a patronizing aristocrat when she rewards his loyalty by securing employment for him on the estate of a war profiteer.

On the estate Sergei has his baser instincts awakened by another servant, the animalistic Ivan, played by Charles Puffy. When revolutionaries overrun the estate Sergei's passions have been so aroused that he tries to rape the countess, but he's thwarted when Loyalist soldiers quell the uprising. The countess, however, vouches for Sergei's loyalty to the Captain, her lover, because her conscience is awakened when the soldiers who seize Sergei accidentally expose the scars of a beating he took in the forest for refusing to divulge her identity to revolutionaries.

Films like this are why I prefer European silents, or American silents directed by Europeans like Murnau, Sjöström, Tourneur, and Christensen. Scenes that might have been cloyingly sentimental, as when Sergei bathes the countess' feet, are extremely moving, avoiding the exaggerated emotion that was a staple of American film, and letting Chaney's gentle hands speak for themselves.

. . . title. The pernicious propaganda peddlers behind this farce carefully craft their mute movie to make a MOCKERY of True Blue Loyal Patriotic Average Normal Progressive Union Label Working Stiff Citizens. Using a dull palette of demeaning adjectives including "peasant," "idiot," beggar" and "fool," nefarious filmmakers picture workers as chunky people with bad teeth, bad hair and bad posture, while the idle leeching class is uniformly portrayed with perfect choppers, having every hair in place while sporting svelte athletic bodies. This perverse penny pinch-er puff piece glorifies malingering miscreants described in title cards as "war profiteers," while denigrating every character doing a lick of Real Work. To add in salt to MOCKERY, the Groaning Fat Cat One Per Centers go so far as to suggest that the Common Every-man would be better off nestled under the wicked wings of the crime gang ringleaders than in supplementing an honest wage with their share of the malicious money hoarders' redistributed ill-gotten wealth.

I watched this last night on TCM. My cynical 15-year-old son became curious when he saw the odd thing that I was watching--a silent film starring a very scruffy and awkward Lon Cheney.Surprisingly enough, my son actually forwent his addictive computer games and stayed for the entire movie, all the while asking many questions about the Russian Revolution.

Throughout, the movie is politically ambiguous--who are the bad guys: the aristocracy or the revolutionaries? The fascinating film seems to reveal how the events and passions of the Russian Revolution still mystified non-Russian filmmakers well after the initial upheaval. In the end, the movie still aims to reconcile two views that history has since shown as irreconcilable, and the survivors of the movie most likely were not the survivors of history. The film is compelling, raising questions about outsiders' values affecting their views of the revolution, and also making clear how much of the internal effects of the revolution were still hidden from outsiders at the time of the movie. Simply riveting study!

I wasn't surprised to see that this is one of the under loved and often forgotten films in Lon Chaney's filmography, it's really a shame because it is a strong picture with a complex performance by Lon Chaney. Mockery has the ingredients for controversy for both it's original 1927 audience and for film goers taking a look at it now. It deals with sensitive political matters in the class struggle and the Russian Revolution. Sergei is a character tailor fit for Chaney and I really think this is why Mockery is a great picture.

Benjamin Christianson is unlike many of MGM's directors of the time. As a European import he offers something different to this picture and it compliments Chaney and his character quite beautifully. Christianson's camera work is more gritty and unconventional, the early scenes through the forest play like an on-location documentary. Christianson's angles make the close-ups of Chaney some of the strongest in my opinion.

I had seen production stills of Chaney's make-up for Sergei and I was kind of dismayed. I thought Lon had given into the stereotypical characterization of the Russian. I was disappointed because Chaney strives not to give into stereotypes in the creation of his Chinese characters. I had to see Sergei move to understand the complexity behind Chaney's make-up and his performance. The film opens with Sergei moving through a deserted battlefield full of corpses. Chaney is right to make-up Sergei in this fashion when we see his surroundings. His life consists of finding food and shelter and a hellish time. At his heart Sergei isn't an animal which some say Chaney plays him as. One of the best examples of this is when Chaney encounters a dying solider begging for water and despite his own dire need for it Sergei runs to the aid of someone he doesn't know. I all most think the make-up for Sergei could be one of his finest in complimenting his acting.

Despite it's political themes Mockery doesn't try to shed Communism or Bolshevism in an overly negative light. Mockery is a character study for Chaney. What it tries to do is show why these ideologies could appeal to some men. Sergei doesn't want a job in the kitchen of the Countess, he wants the Countess and everyone else for that manner to take him seriously and to think of him as a human being. Sergei respects the Countess in their journey to Novokursk and never steps over the boundaries and he is willing to take brutal punishment from Red soldiers for the friendship of the Countess. Sergei has never had a friend because people think of him as some sort of dim-witted animal. Ivan the burly cook asks a valid question "Why does the Captain get kisses, while you get lashes." The finale of the film where Sergei tries to assault the Countess is as much out of anger and sadness as it is out of sexual urges. Many say the film is another example of Chaney's unrequited love scenarios, I don't think so. I don't think Sergei is naive enough to think he can win the Countess, his quest is to show that he is worthy enough to try.

Look at his eyes. Watch the man's eyes. When he's drunk he's squinting with one eye. Feel the sadness in his eyes. They almost make you forget about his physical movements. He's stooped over through most of the film. Watch his hands. No one, ever, conveyed more emotion with his hands. While all around him are emoting like crazy, there's Chaney with his subtle tics and movements, drawing all the attention. I'd heard about this film since I was a kid. I'd seen the stills. Never thought I'd ever see it-until last night on TCM. This thing was filmed a mere ten years after the real Russian Revolution. That's like us watching something from the Clinton administration. At the end, he strangles someone. There is a long close-up of his face. I've never seen that much rage in an actor's face. Ever. And then it quickly turns to sadness and regret. Is the film melodramatic? Yes. Was Chaney an absolute genius in the film? Absolutely. Thank you TCM.

If you've ever seen one of the (sadly) few remaining movies that feature Lon Chaney, you will probably notice a pattern of him wanting to be with a female character. Chaney's movies were not afraid to have unhappy endings most of the time, since he rarely got the girl to like him back by the time it was all over. Mockery is a little different because the girl in this film starts out liking Chaney, then acts scornful towards him, and then starts liking him again. Unfortunately, he never actually initiates a relationship with her. Although this movie is often considered to be one of Lon's weaker projects, I like it because of its setting. The film takes place in the Russian Empire that is on the brink of collapse. The bolshevik revolution has already taken place and now the USSR is about to be created. This makes it similar to Dr. Zhivago in many ways. The Soviet Union has not formed yet, and russia is stuck in this awkward and tumultuous period between the old and the new. Chaney faces an uncertain future in a changing country. Normally, the historical background of movies is ignored by many people watching, but in this case, it's integral to understanding the story. Sergei (Chaney) is a lowly farmer in Siberia, and he soon comes across the beautiful Tatiana Alexandrova, a girl from a very wealthy family, although Sergei isn't yet aware of this. After resting for a while in a small house, Sergei is ready to escort this girl (who he thinks is a peasant like him) to the nearby town of Novokursk, but thugs break in and intimidate the duo. A cavalry officer named Dmitri rides up to the house on his horse and forces the thugs away, thus saving Sergei and Tatiana. At novokursk, Sergei begins to like Tatiana more, but soon, her noble background makes itself known to him. He's simply not important enough to date a girl of such remarkable status. Still, Tatiana sees to it that he obtains a job as a servant of a family in a mansion. Sergei is clearly hurt by Tatiana's refusal to accept him as her equal, and he starts to become alienated by her. Some other servants in the mansion try to up the ante by telling Sergei that Tatiana may be beautiful, but she has no brains and will have everything in life handed to her forever. Meanwhile, communist troops show up at the mansion and start tearing it apart. The family flees, and Sergei takes advantage of the chaos by trying to force himself on Tatiana. He says he wants her to kiss him like she did the officer earlier in the movie, but she refuses and tries to run. Fearing for her life, Tatiana does whatever it takes to get away from Sergei, and also tries to dodge bullets from the communists outside. Soon, Dmitri and his horsemen arrive, and the communists start to fall back. Sergei is brought before Tatiana by some of Dmitri's men and is about to be taken outside and killed when they ask her for her opinion. If she says he was loyal to her, he lives, if she says no, he dies. Tatiana finally relents and says Sergei has done everything she wanted him to do. At the end, the other servants escape from a cellar they're been locked in and try to attack Tatiana. Sergei kills them, but is fatally injured in the fighting. Because of this, he has no choice but to watch as Tatiana is reunited with Dmitri. Sergei's relationship with her was never meant to be. Chaney was known to appear in some pretty sad and depressing movies throughout his career, but this one must be one of the most brutal. He is poor and still dedicates himself to protecting this girl, and shortly after, she decides she doesn't even want him. Further, he's forced to accept that Tatiana only dates men from similarly aristocratic backgrounds like her own (such as military officers), and so even if Sergei lived, he wouldn't have had a chance. The movie does a good job of portraying the hatred the bolsheviks had for the wealthy, since communist doctrine states everyone is to be paid the same amount of money, regardless of their social status, skill, or intelligence. They start attacking the mansion later in the movie because it symbolizes greed, and no person should have such an unnecessarily huge place to live. Chaney is (as usual) great here, and I'll watch just about anything as long as he is in it. Barbara Bedford plays Tatiana, who is mistaken for a fellow peasant by Chaney but later shown to be extremely rich. She is the main reason he goes through so much agony in the film. Even if this movie is not one of Chaney's best, I still like to watch as many things like this as I can, because Chaney's career is depressing in and of itself. Of the 150 or so films he made, only around 50 survive today, and he only made one sound movie (The Unholy Three), since he was worried his acting style would be left in the dust once the silent age ended. Chaney would later die of cancer in 1930, and we will never know what his other sound films might have been like. That is sad.

Getting back to the big stars of silents, it would be extremely hard to go past Lon Chaney.

"Mockery" (1927) presents Lon with a false nose and wig as a dim-witted Russian peasant who is almost persuaded by the extraordinarily popular comedian, Charles Puffy (here repulsively evil in a wholly dramatic role), to join the Russian Revolution.

Oddly, the movie also boasts another well-known comedian-turned-serious-actor in its cast, namely Mack Swain as the grasping Gaidaroff.

Although second-billed, Ricardo Cortez has only a small role to play, which he accomplishes with his usual finesse.

Nonetheless, despite this grand roll-up - Chaney, Puffy, Swain, Cortez - it's actually Barbara Bedford's movie. She is superb! Hard to believe that in less than three years, her star would decline and she would spend the rest of her lengthy career playing scores and scores of walk-ons and bits.

(Available on an excellent Warner Archive DVD).

"The Mockery" is one of Lon Chaney's lesser known films. It is nonetheless a riveting Russian revolution melodrama.

Chaney plays a simple minded peasant named Sergei whom we first see searching the corpses of dead soldiers for food, drink and whatever else he can find. A beautiful young woman (Barbara Bedford) appears and implores Sergei to guide her to the city of Novokursk. Sergei agrees and on their journey they stop to rest at an apparently deserted cabin.

Unknown to the weary travelers, there is a revolutionary soldier hiding out there. Soon his compatriots arrive and Sergei is forced to take a beating while protecting the young woman. They are rescued when an army patrol rescues them. The woman promises to always be Sergei's friend.

Arriving in the city we learn that the young woman is the Countess Tatiana Alexandrova. Sergei is hospitalized and the Countess goes to live with the rich war profiteering Gaidaroffs (Mack Swain, Emily Fitzroy). When Sergei is released from hospital, he goes to the Gaidaroff home to seek out his "friend". There he learns that she is an aristocrat in love with an army officer Captain Dimitri (Ricardo Cortez).

Sergei is given a job with the household gate keeper Ivan (Charles Puffy) who begins to fill Sergei's mind with talk of the coming revolution. Sergei changes and becomes radicalized. When the revolutionaries take over the house, the Gaidaroffs flee and Sergei seeks out the Countess with hopes of taking her unto himself but..................................................

Chaney, the master pantomimist, again becomes the character he is playing. He becomes Sergei with his unkempt look and his simple minded outlook. As always, the viewer is drawn to Chaney's various facial expressions and mannerisms in accordance with the progression of the story. The story line of Sergei's protection of the young girl and his whipping at the hands of the revolutionaries, reminds me of a similar relationship between Quasimodo and Esmarelda in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (1923).

Barbara Bedford makes a fetching young Countess who raises the desires of Sergei, Ivan and Dimitri. Ricardo Cortez is the dashing young hero in much the same way as Norman Kerry in the earlier film.

Mack Swain is the same Mack Swain who appeared in numerous Charlie Chaplin shorts and in the classic "The Gold Rush" Emily Fitzroy stand out as the domineering Mrs. Gaidaroff. And watch for John Mack Brown in a couple of scenes as an Army officer. Brown of course, went on to a lengthy career as Johnny Mack Brown in an never ending series of "B" westerns after a brief career as a leading man at MGM.

Another Chaney classic.

Like the typical movie-goer of a century ago, I'll see anything with Lon Chaney on the marquee.

I found this film to be on the spare side, not nearly as psychologically compelling as a Chaney vehicle like "Laugh, Clown, Laugh." But it offered enough to keep me watching till the end.

Chaney plays Sergei, a dim-witted peasant who rescues an aristocrat during the Russian Revolution. The grateful Countess Tatiana (Barbara Bedford) assures him that they'll always be friends.

However, an Iago-like gatekeeper at Tatiana's estate (Karoly Huszar) tries to stir resentment in Sergei, egging him on to the point of near-mayhem ("Idiot, am I? Well, idiots kill!").

The movie creates a sense of chaos and panic as the rich have their doors kicked in and must flee into the night. They're targets for extortion. (Anyone else hear echoes of 21st-century civil strife in a note from the hoi polloi? "Your riches were stolen from the people. Leave 5,000 rubles for us at the gate. If you don't, we will take everything.")

Like its protagonist, this movie ultimately seems a little simple-minded. Still, an hour with Chaney is never entirely wasted.

(You might want to see the Wikipedia bio of Ms. Bedford, who later left acting to embrace a surprising second career.)