This week's screening is a European double feature consisting of THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, an example of German Expressionism, and MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, an example of Soviet Montage. These films showcase two very different but equally important parts of filmmaking: mise-en-scene and montage. Both these films and their respective movements would have tremendous impact on the art of filmmaking and especially the development of Classical Hollywood cinema that we will look at in a few weeks. 
THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI is considered one of the best horror films ever produced. The film follows a series of murders in a German mountain town after the arrival of Dr. Caligari and his assistant Cesare. With amazing sets and performances, the film takes the viewer into the deranged psyche of the human mind. The visuals of MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA are equally disorienting but in a different way. Constructed from images of Soviet citizens, with no plot, the film is an experimental documentary that features numerous cinematic techniques including double exposure, split screens, and jump cuts.Suggested Supplmental Screenings: For German Expressionism -- NOSFERATU (Murnau, 1922), METROPOLIS (Lang, 1927), and SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS (Murnau, 1927). For Soviet Montage -- THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (Eisenstein, 1925) and STRIKE (Eisenstein, 1925).
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a 1920 silent film is the most recognized example of German expressionism. Directed by Robert Wiene, it follows the story of two friends Francis and Alan who go to a carnival and witness a show of Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist Cesare. Cesare is able to tell the future and prophesizes that Alan will die by dawn. Alan is eventually murder and everyone in the small village point’s fingers at Cesare. Later on he snatch’s a girl named Jane and hides from the villagers. Due to all the running around Cesare dies from exhaustion. Francis goes to looking for answers at an insane asylum only to find that Dr. Caligari is the director. Francis learns of Caligari’s obsession with this guy “Caligari” who goes to towns and uses a somnambulist to kill people. There is a twist ending when Francis realizes that the whole time he is fantasying about his event and actually he is a patient of the insane asylum. I really enjoyed the production design of the film where all of the sets and locations in the film were slanted and twisted further added to the psychological idea of the film. There was a prevalent use of shadows to create suspense. The one scene where Cesare is killing Alan is a very similar to the scene in psycho where Janet Leigh is killed in the shower. Cesare also reminded me of Mary Shelly’s monster, Frankenstein. The twist at the end felt very similar to the end of Shutter Island where Leo Decaprio was really a patient at the mental hospital.
ReplyDeleteMan With a Movie Camera was very hard to follow since it had no plot and no actors. It was visually disorienting but it is a classic example of soviet montage. I thought that I was sort of like a metafilm, you saw this “man with a movie camera” trying to make a film. The film documents urban life in a Russian town. You can see that this film stresses technicality in postproduction when you see split screens, freeze frames and slow motion.
The Cabinet of Dr.Caligari is probably one of the most impressive silent films next to Metropolis. I was taken aback by the modern story telling elements and surprise twist ending. With its jagged designs and surreal landscapes, visually the film was stunning. It can be easily seen how Tim Burton and artists such as Salvador Dali were influenced by this film. The influence on Tim Burton was so large that beside using the warped designs he even directly uses the castle backdrop for "Edward Scissorhands". I felt the length was perfect, a mere 70 minutes yet it was able to get its story and point across without pummeling the audience. The actors did a fine job, it never felt cheesy or wooden like other silent films. Perhaps my favorite element of the film was the twist ending. It is revealed at the end that the main characters story was all a fantasy within his head and that he had been using people within his mental asylum to create the characters. The audience then realizes the meaning for the surreal landscapes, it was a representation of the characters twisted mentality. Once out of the fantasy sequence, the world appears to be normal, and the room used to house the cabinet which Cerase sleeps in is revealed to be the main characters room. Yet this time the room appears to be normal without jagged and misshaped surroundings. It almost felt like the silent version of "Shutter Island". Probably one of the most impressive early films I have seen, I never realized how influential it was till I finally saw it. As for "Man With A Movie Camera", I was not particularly a fan of it but I can appreciate its importance. Based around a series of montages, there is no story or even a narrative in this film. The premise is basically a man running around Russia filming day to day events. Several points you see the actual cameraman rushing to find new things to film. I went the route of playing my own music for the film and found that made it a bit more entertaining.
ReplyDelete“The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” was really interesting, bizarre, and all things good. This film reverted back to all still shots, melodramatic, overly theatrical acting, and music, and it was still able to create legitimate tension and at times, even horror. The close ups of the smiling, and menacing Dr. Caligari were really terrifying and the ominous shadow that wakes Allen just before he is murdered has become a staple of horror movies. The set was interesting. Obviously not made to be realistic so any criticism that the set showed a lack of production or anything like that would be off. I think the set, with its twists and harsh angles was more meant to disorient the audience and was used as a tool to put more of the director’s vision on screen, when usually a set is treated more as a parameter as people have to first create a believable world, and then have a story take place there. For this movie it works. What I didn’t like was the constant spotlight things to draw our attention to the “most important” thing happening on screen. The audience is not so dense that they can’t follow a well-framed action. The effect that spotlight had, was also lessoned each time they used it. If everything is important, then nothing is. As soon as that “twist” ending revealed itself Scorsese’s, Fincher’s, and Shyamalan’s “twist” endings (among many more) dropped a notch in my book (as if my opinion of Shyamalan could drop further). How inventive is it if someone came up with it 90 years ago and did it really well.
ReplyDeleteI was worried a Soviet montage might put me to sleep but the “Man with the Movie Camera” had such great shots that it kept my attention without any narrative at all. It seemed like the shots were well organized in blocks for the most part, especially the train scenes and the machinery with the turning cogs, so I kept finding myself trying to piece together a real narrative but it was really just a man, in Russia, with a movie camera. I liked it a lot and was freaked out by how long he decided to wait in front of that train before moving. My question is… why did you cut it short?
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was horrible overall. It used some new technologies for its time such as fades, zooms and point of view; but it was atrocious. I fought my way desperately to stay awake throughout the entire film. It was by far, one of the worst films we have viewed in this class. The characters over did it. The pace of the film dragged ridiculously. The story line was creative and I understood where Robert Wiene was trying to accomplish, but he failed miserably. There was no suspense, he failed at that. There was no action that really moved or motivated the audience, he failed at that. There was no happy, sad or even slightly emotional ending, so he failed at that as well. I see the influence of this film though with something like Edward Scissorhands or a lot of Johnny Depp characters. It was precedence for later great productions but I am so glad those later productions learned from the failures and screw ups of this film. It was just a horrible fantasy/sci-fi film. Man with a Movie Camera was so much more interesting than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Man with a Movie Camera was just a documentary, displaying Soviet montages, and it was more entertaining than even ten minutes of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. There was no plot, actors or even purpose to this film but to show what man captured on his camera. This film elicited more of an emotional response out of me than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The different shot compositions were phenomenal specifically when the train approaches and that shot are flipped back and forth with someone watching. I especially loved the timing of a lot of the shots. I liked the angles like the shot of some tall structure with smoke oozing from the top of it but the audience sort of sees the building tipped sideways a little bit. All the shots in this short documentary gave me a couple of ideas for some future projects.
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. This is in large part because my only other exposure to German Expressionism has been Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Metropolis is very impressive and because of this I expected the exact same from Caligari. I was surprised to read that many consider Caligari to be the greatest horror movie of all time. There's obviously something about the film that I don't get.
ReplyDeleteThe look of the film was consistent, with every scene boasting a dramatic display of distorted set pieces. The consistency of this distortion was distracting and did not affect me positively while watching it. If used more sparsely, maybe it could have created a deeper sense of dread. Because the entire movie made use of the distortion, there was no reference point as to what was normal--what was reality. It seemed like a caricature to me.
I enjoyed Man with a Movie Camera. It reminds me of many of the self-shot films people frequently put up on Vimeo. Despite no plot I was entertained. The music was good as well.
Overall I liked both films, preferring Man with a Movie Camera.
The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari was AWESOME. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. The production design was absolutely spectacular. The sharp angles, the deep shadows, the mysterious fair grounds, the bizarre rooftops, it was all so fascinating. I can see directors today who have harkened back to this time. First there is film noir, which seems to take many of its cues from this movie and those like it. The shadows, the windows, the always nighttime feel. As for actual directors, there is Tim Burton for sure. While some may argue that his vision of Gotham and things like that are rooted in noir, I would think that he had seen some of this stuff too. Terry Gilliam is another one, and since he basks in all things strange and bizarre it is no surprise. In fact, the end of Brazil is somewhat similar in the desolate ending of doctors going to cure a troubled patient, but this might be a stretch.
ReplyDeleteI have really only seen one other Expressionist piece, and it was Fritz Lang's Metropolis. I love both of them, and they twist the style to their own use. While Metropolis is this beautiful, technically brilliant, sprawling sci fi/ fantasy epic, Caligari makes it much more contained and close, never letting itself become to huge, or show to much. This is what makes Caligari a horror film, rather than a sci-fi blockbuster epic type film.
Caligari introduced me to a world that I never felt quite comfortable in. It reminded me of an Emerald City gone horribly wrong. The world is completely nightmarish, and the film never hints at where you might be. From little things like the chairs being abnormally high, to the sharp angles of the windows and the even weirder panes, I was extremely disturbed. Some of the settings outside where obviously sets, which gave the whole thing a more claustrophobic feel. The monster was also very effective, although I assume that it is a expressionistic thing, since Count Orlock in Nosferatu moved in a very similar fashion. Also, much like Orlock, the monster has a similarly awesome name, Cesare. Caligari himself was pretty freaky too. The story of this doctor who finds a somnambulist and, for his own curiosity, must know whether he can compel his patient to kill, is very unsettling. In fact, all the performances were surprisingly fitting to the subject matter. While in other screenings there has been occasional laughing at the screen because of performances, in this one it was very rare. This may be because we are getting used to it, but my hunch is that it is the subject matter and quality.
Man With A Movie Camera was a whole other experience. It was incredibly interesting as well though. Although the movie says that it is an experiment in the universal language and has no story, I believe that it does. We see the camera and all of its inner workings and lens movements, and we see the camera man going to get his shots. This becomes the story as we see the camera get set up, and then see what the camera sees as it moves through the area. Plus, the beginning is people in a movie theater and the seats going down by themselves, which is a bit of narrative in itself. It gave me such a feel of that area of Russia so beautifully that I did not care in the least whether there where any characters other than the camera itself. The whole movie boiled down to the shots, which were absolutely astonishing, so well timed, and so well thought out.
ReplyDeleteYou know how in textbooks and in classes you are shown black and white pictures of times past? Well, here are those in motion. It is a spectacular artifact of the time. We get to see the people, rich and homeless. We get to see the modes of transportation, from cars to horses, in motion. We get to see the factories and the bridges and the buildings and the parks and pretty much everything. It is not often you get a chance to really experience what it was like there, in that time, on that day, and what you would expect to see if you walked around.
I will say that some of the music didn't really fit. It was all interesting, although extremely minimalist and pattern based (like the things that Phillip Glass or Clint Mansell usually do), but sometimes it gave certain passages a more ominous tone than was needed, guiding your feeling of what you were seeing one way or the other. Regardless I really enjoyed it and am thinking of spending the time to watch the remaining half hour of it.
I’ll admit to having trouble staying awake through all of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (ok, I might have dosed off for at least a few minutes at some point). It’s not that the movie was horrendously boring, or had a bad story, or uninteresting set design, but the pace especially in the beginning was awfully slow, every shot taking at least 30 seconds more than it needed to be (I can remember one shot where a man is preparing to leave his house, and he exits the frame for an entire 10-15 seconds, leaving the audience there just watching nothing until he finally re-enters and then leaves through his front door.) There were too many moments like this that left me unable to keep full attention. I was also surprised by the lack of film quality, but I guess it adds to the creepiness of the story (there were some genuinely creepy moments with just the face of the murderer). My guess is that most of the actors were originally stage actors, and had a great deal of trouble hiding that in their bombastic performances. Though something about that style adds a new level of charm to the movie. Overall, Man with a Movie was the more enjoyable experience for me. Watching the random, but well-composed, shots of real life people and places brought me back to when I was little, and experimenting in a similar manner with a small video camera. The soundtrack, especially in the middle, was so awesomely creepy. It may have been too much so, as it really didn’t fit the onscreen images at times (scenes in Caligari suffered this same problem, as the music would build up to a climax with absolutely nothing on-screen happening to warrant the musical cue), but nonetheless it somehow fit perfectly, grabbing your attention in a much more powerful way than the first film was able to.
ReplyDeleteThe Cabinet of Dr. Caligari uses a framing technique in which the entire story is told in flashback form, narrated by one of the characters. This technique has been utilized various times again after Dr. Caligari. The camera was static throughout the film. It was usually placed in the center of the frame and it filmed the action. Close-ups were included in order to express the emotions of the characters. Also, the sets/backdrops were one of the most interesting aspects of the film. I noticed there were little to no use of straight lines. Door and windows were slanted and objects in the background, such as lamps and stairs, were shaped out of proportion. This choice by the filmmakers expresses the odd nature of the story and that something is not quite right in the world of the characters. However, it seemed to me that the only location that seemed “normal” was the outside of the asylum. This, in opposite to the rest of the film, shows that asylum is “reality”. Irises were used in order to draw attention to what was important in the frame, such as the emotion on a character’s face or a certain object. Tinting also established the time of day (day or night), where blue represented night and sepia showed day. In addition, making Cesare a man who always sleeps makes him a perfect villain and adds to the mystery of who is committing the murders. Who would suspect a man of killing when he’s always asleep?
ReplyDeleteMan With a Movie Camera was interesting because of the different editing techniques it used. There were instances of fast motion, slow motion, and split screen. The soundtrack also aided in evoking feelings from the montage. The various shots were also interesting. Perhaps more time and thought were given to the shots since the film did not have a plot and did not include actors. The film provided a collection of moving images that documents Russia at the time that it was filmed.
The Man with the Movie Camera was very interesting in terms of editing and how it utilizes various cinematic techniques. The whole concept of a montage doesn’t seem as relevant today, but for its time was probably a great source of entertainment for the average Soviet proletariat. The use of fast motion and jump cuts made some of the more boring parts seem to go by quicker. I thought it was interesting how there were many instances of a camera pointed at another camera. I would love to see such a talented director work with an actual plot and actors, and such. The camera seems to have a mind of its own. I thought the footage of the woman giving birth was pretty shocking; they really do not build up to it or give you much warning, but I can understand why Vertov chose to show it.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was very scary, not even taking into account when it was made. The sets and props were so surreal and elaborate. This film definitely paved the way for directors like Tim Burton, and movies like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The twist ending, or the “original” twist ending, really shattered my expectations; I never thought that something like the origins of the twist ending could be traced back. I also really enjoyed the “overacting” usually present in expressionist films. The entire story is told through the flashback of one of the characters so everything you are seeing his interpretation of the world, a fact which becomes abundantly clear at the end. It’s funny how even with no dialogue and a relatively scarce amount of title cards that the story still comes across perfectly, even with the twists and turns.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is one of the best silent films ever made. For me as one of the most influential of German expressionism films it was really interesting to watch. Its character’s performances and painting sets were interesting at the time. The main characters of Dr. Caligari and Cesare were both enthusiastic and great. As one of the first good horror films it was also very much known for its surprise twist at the end, when we realize that the narrator was really the crazy one. The film’s expressionist style made the story so entertaining. I also think the lighting and camera’s focus was impressive since when developing film they counted with limited quota of power and light. Even though it was silent and in black and white I truthfully enjoyed it and would consider this film as one of the most or the most influential films of German expressionism, for example in movies today like inglorious bastards, Edward scissor hands, Freddy Kruger and pretty much almost all horror films.
ReplyDeleteThe man with a movie camera was as important of a film, but somehow different. It had no characters or plot so it was harder for me to understand and keep focus. As a classic example of soviet montage it gave me a sense of how it felt to be filming a film but at the same time the editing was not so good and scenes where sometime freezed and very slow. Personally this was not my favorite film but I can surly appreciate its value specially in reflecting montage techniques.
I have to say that I love the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari; it was everything that I like in a film. What I did not like was the fact that when a guy turn on the light on the steer it look as if it where paper and not fire, I really don’t understand why would the film maker let this get away looking like that but he did. What I did like was that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari look a lot like Alfred Hitchcock’s film Psycho, when the killing of the knife it looked just the shower scene in Psycho when the guy kill’s the women. The think that I really like was the fact that in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari there was no blood or nothing to make me gross out. What I didn’t like was that everyone had make-up and that even the guys had make-up I would like to know if that’s just the way the film was made, did the film makers know what was going on or was it just like the lighting of the street light. I also wanted to say that the light and shadows used in the film where super good and the film made me feel as if I were in the film by not letting the camera go notice though out the film. I did not understand why was it that most of the women had light eyes and light hair, was that “in style” I really did like the close ups and the zooms where really well done, I did not like the freeze frames on the doctor or on anyone other. To me it felt too fake, I would have like it if the close-ups where more real and not just one shot of the same face, but over all I really like the film, I loved the story line and now I can tell why Alfred Hitchcock would use these type of films to do his own movies. But looking at this film made me want to do a film of my own. I really did not like Man With A Camera, it was well made that I understood everything without almost no sub tiles and it keep my attention but what I didn’t like was the way the camera moved though out the film I felt it was too good to be a man with just a camera, I would have like to see more movement in the film, I really did like the train scene.
ReplyDeleteThe 1920 silent film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was not a film that I enjoyed watching at all. It was extremely hard for me to stay awake during film. There was no attention grabber or anything that pulled me in, into watching the film. The film seemed extremely slow, to the point that I sometimes got confused. The storyline was interesting but Robert Wiene did a terrible job at executing it. It is to my understanding that this film is known as introducing twist endings to cinema, and sadly that is the only thing that I think the film has going for itself. My favorite film genre is horror and I am disappointed that this is considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time. The set of the film was interesting, as it looked like something out of a Dr. Sues book, other than that, the filming could have been a lot better.
ReplyDeleteThe Man With A Movie Camera was a better film than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Although it was a different genre, being a documentary, it was just more interesting to watch. The film was a soviet montage of just a man with a camera in Russia. The film consisted of great shots that kept me more entertained than the previous film and was just a little more enjoyable to watch.
I had read about the film, The Cabinet of Dr. Calgary, in previous film classes and was familiar with its significance in the world of cinema and expressionism, but viewing the film for myself was another experience entirely. The textbooks would refer to it as a perfect example of German Expressionism, mise-en-scen and tout the fact that it’s quite possibly the first horror film ever made. My old textbook depicted an image of Cesare, perhaps the most memorable character as he walked jaggedly down an eerie, surreal slope. I wondered what the film in it’s entirety would be like having only read about it. A few days before the screening, I decided to take a sneak peek online (legally!) from a film archive. Let me tell you—the difference between seeing Calgary on a small 4-inch window versus a large movie screen made all the difference for me. During my first viewing, the pacing was painfully slow. I simply couldn’t get hooked and had to retire my viewing until the Cosford screening. The large screen, the audience and overall cinematic experience are what allowed me to give it a second chance. In a larger format, I was able to appreciate the attention to detail, such as the gnarled trees which mimicked Cesare’s body positioning, the slanted doorways, the dramatic makeup and chiaroscuro. All of these elements created a creepy world within the film that carried the story through. Close up shots of Dr. Calgary really drove the creepy factor home. As far as I recall, the camera remained stationary, but the dynamic angles of the set added visual interest. The most memorable aspect was by far the various plot twists, which were both completely unexpected in general and simply due to the time period in which it was filmed. I could very easily see how Tim Burton would be highly influenced by such a film.
ReplyDeleteI was not quite a fan of the second film, The Man With The Movie Camera, but I did enjoy several moments. Despite the opening titles which stated several times that the film did not have a narrative, inter-titles and was experimental cinematic language, I found myself subconsciously trying to connect the various shots into a story. As soon as you would resign yourself to simply watching, a visual pun or association would pop up…such as the opening and closing shutters inter-cut with a woman’s blinking eyes to the opening and closing of an iris of a lens. I thought it was interesting that they chose to use the “film within a film” route, which was a theme used heavily in the film during our first film screening, Lumiere and Company.
--Brianne McKay
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was very interesting to behold, in a purely visual way. I definitely was not 'sucked' into the story. However, I must say that throughout the whole thing I couldn't help but think of Tim Burton and the crazy distorted iconography that he employs in his films. My mind also went to Nosferatu, which I had studied previously as part of the horror genre, but I never actually took much consideration into being a part of German Expression until I saw The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. One thing I didn't like with Dr. Caligari was its static nature. The editing was sub-par and it really took me out of the experience because I was just so aware of how obvious the editing was. I really wanted to get into this movie in a much more emotional way because I'd heard so many good things about it, but I really couldn't cope with it. Mind you, I didn't hate it, I just wasn't drawn into it.
ReplyDeleteMan With a Movie Camera was so much more interesting, which is odd, because I find myself usually unimpressed by this sort of very simplistic mode. Yet I was fully drawn into it. It was a mix of the imagery and the editing that really got me. It was very interesting to watch. The experimentation involved in every aspect, from simple visual allusions to all the transitions was very impressive.
The Cabinet of Dr. Cagliari has been my favorite screening thus far. I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its complexity in story and visual style. I’ve always appreciated movies for their creative influence and foundation in imagination, which I felt was lacking from the previous screenings we have watched. The story was told from a subjective point of view and given its time period I was not expecting the twist at the ending – I suppose I pigeonholed the movie as not being able to deliver something that complex. The horror piece itself was new and intriguing, and they did well to create a creepy and engaging storyline, which was certainly helped by the beautiful sets. Everything within the frame was warped and it only helped to parallel the horror of the story. Cesare and Caligari felt like scary and dangerous presences because of the acting, but more because of the jagged edges, sloping windows, and dark imagery surrounding them both. My favorite scene was when Cesare was running over the bridge and through the forest. The scene moved away from decorated sets into a more natural environment, and while those elements were artificially manipulated it did give the scene a more overwhelming and dark feel – this feeling coupled with the action of the scene made it fun to watch. The expressionist aspects again made it the first film I felt I could invest in emotionally and intellectually. The film worked to mimic and represent more than an emotion or social construct, but a state of mind with its physical representation of the anxiety, fear, and questions of the time. The actual execution and technical pieces of the film were nothing special. I thought the editing and cuts between shots were pretty basic. This is evidently an aspect that had not yet been considered in the meaning and emotion it can add to a film – something that seemed far more developed in the clip of Metropolis from class.
ReplyDeleteMan with a Movie Camera also impressed me with its development in complexity. On the flip side, this film seemed far more interested in the meaning it could convey through editing and images. I actually liked this film a lot more than I thought I would. The pacing and choice of images did have some loose connection that I enjoyed dissecting for the brief seconds they were actually shown. I liked the cross between the girl batting her eyes, the blinds opening and closing, and the reflexive camera opening and closing it’s iris. Again this film is one that I felt embraced film as a medium and not just a storytelling device – it took advantage of how film could enhance the story and meaning as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari did.
The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari was entertaining, yet hard to follow. The distinction it has from the other films of it's era is enormous and I loved it for it's originality but the concept of continuity, in my opinion, wasn't properly used. I was confused about where the characters were moving about and what everyone's purpose was. Things came together, somewhat, towards the end of the film, but I felt confused throughout the first quarter of it. However, I absolutely loved the sets and the way they used the space to give an eery feel to this psychological thriller. The second I saw it on screen, Edward Scissorhands immediately came to mind. I could clearly see the evolution of German Expressionism in today's movies and the influence it has had on contemporary directors such as Tim Burton. I think one of the things I enjoyed most about this film was the chiaroscuro. I'm all for dramatic lighting, and the contrast between light and dark both in wardrobe and on set gave the film another dimension that other films, in my opinion, failed to do. It dramatized and intensified the characters and their actions. Overall, I enjoyed this film, but I believe it is something I need to re-watch in order for me to completely appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteMan with a Movie Camera was also interesting. I did not expect to see so many complex and visually interesting shots in this film. It surpassed the realm of normalcy and entered an artistic domain. He literally transports the viewer into the film by showing footage of people watching the film! I saw frames within frames, dutch angles, and incredible intercutting that I had yet to see in any other film.
I enjoyed both films, and believe that they both did something groundbreaking for the film industry. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari allowed people to think of more complex stories by adding the unexpected twist at the end, while Man with a Movie Camera was the vessel that future filmmakers could use to do so.
-Nathalie Fernandez
Sarah Garcia
ReplyDelete“Man with a Movie Camera” is one of the most interesting silent films that I have ever seen. The way in which the director presented the subjects in his film showed the reaction of people to a camera. How they interact with people and how they interact with people in front of a camera is different because they often fear the camera or believe that they should only act in certain ways when there is a camera present. The only thing that I did not like was that there was no real underlying story, but it did show that the director was able to experiment with different blocking as well as orientation of the camera. I enjoyed the way the filmmaker juxtaposed his shots to one another to add a sense that they went together in the sequence when often times that was not the case.
In terms of the film “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” I really did not enjoy it, because it had no driving force. The film all in all was dragging on and on, and nearly put me to sleep. It did introduce a new method in story telling which was a plot twist that I had not seen in any of the other films that we have screened thus far, but that does not make up for the poor story line through out the entire film leading up to the twist. I did enjoy the set of this film because it added a fantastical dynamic to the story.
All in all, I think that both films were able to make tremendous advances with in the film industry. I have studied the documentary “Man with a Movie Camera” in a previous class and the professor discussed that this is when documentary had aspects of acting as in “Nanook of the North” about a caveman who could not figure out modern advances but in this film he did direct the caveman to complete several tasks that were not part of his daily routine in order to make the film more interesting for the audiences. This is the same with “Man with a Movie Camera”, because there were for sure specific shots that the director or cinematographer set up specifically for audience appeal.
The cabinet of Dr. Caligari was a very cool film. I really liked how there was a major twist at the end because the entire time, I thought Dr. Caligari was evil. The perception of the movie was hard to grasp as the setting and places were skewed. The houses were very unrealistic and carnival had a weird structure to it. Even though it is supposed to be a part of the movie and German Expressionism I thought it took my attention away from me. I really was in and out of the movie until the ending when the main character was the crazy one. It might be the fact that I am too use to color and dialogue driven movies because I find silent movies to be horrible. I can't watch them because the score is the same and puts me into a lullaby and I can't handle it. I don't think I can appreciate them because I don't like focusing on two different things. All in all the movie had a great twist that perked my attention for a while, but still I must have ADD because I need some color and dialogue.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Man with the Movie Camera, I actually really liked the music. The music seemed very modern to me and I wanted to watch the film. The cuts were weird at times, but they were cut so short and different that I really enjoyed watching the movie. I wanted to see where the movie was going, if it even had a place to go, but for the half of the movie, I thought it was pretty good. I loved the scenes where they showed you the picture of a thing and then ran the clip a few seconds later. That was interesting to visualize. Another interesting point was how many shots there were of dolls, I don't know why, but it was fascinating to see. Overall both of the movies were good, but still not grabbing my full attention.
As I gazed into the best horror of all time 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari', I kept on reminding myself that this was a 1920s film. I was just amazed by the complexity the film contained. I just wasn't following the narrative at first, and thought of it being very confusing. The film felt that they focused more on the visual aspects than the narrative ones, however, when I reached to about 3/4 of the film I started to understand the directors point of view, and the complexity he wanted to add in creating a masterpiece as such.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of work spent on the visual aspects of the mis en scene was clearly shown, contributing to the German Expressionism. Displays of sharp edges, tilted walls and doors, crooked houses, and pointed arches all add this uncomfortable feel to the viewer in making us relate to the narrative, as we all feel with our eyes. This film was produced after WWI, thus showing all the abstract and avant-garde styles the Germans had, even by the characters represented. Dr. Caligari walks around hunchbacked and crooked (represented as a monster), relating this special style to most of the German films.
The thing I found extremely odd about this narrative is that many newer films might have undertaken the main theme, as we have seen in both 'Fight Club' and 'Shutter Island'. I personally enjoyed both films very much, and came to realize that 'Fight Club' can be related in the way that we the viewers discover that the protagonist already has lost his mind, and has created a world of his own; exactly the same in 'Shutter Island', the protagonist creates this whole judgement about the 'Madhouse' and the Doctor controlling it, and as we seem to find out that it was all a play in his mind, with him being the actual person needing treatment.
We saw The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Man With a Movie Camera. In the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari we see an example of German expressionism. I found the architecture and the constructed sets to be interesting. The same goes for the costumes. I personally did not enjoy the film, I found it to be somewhat boring and long. On the other hand I really liked The Man with the Movie Camera. This might seem strange because that movie has not plot, story or characters, but I found the images and the music to be very interesting. It reminded me of the film Koyaanisqatsi directed by Godfrey Reggio with music by Philip Glass. Although the latter one more of a theme to, you can certainly see the similarity between them.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very start of Man with the Movie Camera, I didn’t know what to expect. The narrative that came together in this silent, documentary film surprised me. At first I was simply interested in the objects and culture of the time period of this film, but once it reached the climactic scene where everything that was once closed and still began opening up and moving, I got so captivated. Although it was experimental, I still found underlined story and meaning even if the filmmakers didn’t intend to portray it. They filmed places and people of Russia in such a way that I was tempted to connect the dots of all the subject matter, even though it was random scenes they captured.
ReplyDeleteWhat I remembered the most was the points where the second camera man would film the director filming and what see what he would do to get specific, experimental shots. It’s very interesting watching filmmakers of the 1930’s filming with techniques we still use now.
As for the German expressionistic film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, it felt like watching an expressionist painting coming to life. Every painted line and set creation was an artwork in itself. It felt more like a theatre presentation than cinema, in my opinion, first because of the set, but also because each and every shot dragged on, thoroughly showing every emotion and expression of the actors. Much of the acting even appeared like a dance or choreography out of an opera.
I’m not surprised that the character Cesare got the most recognition out of this film. He had strange poses and walks that were very close to ballet techniques. His character is extremely memorable, in the way that the image Edward Scissorhands seems to linger even after seeing the movie. Overall, it was an interesting, extremely unique film.
-Allison Basham
To start this post off I wanted to say that I’m a huge fan of Requiem and can see where a lot of the shots from that can derive from German expressionism and Soviet montage. That being said before we started this unit I still wasn’t a fan of either genre, believing they were two abstract. Seeing the full film of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” made me rethink my take on German expressionism. The way the environment looked with the high contrast and ridged edges did not have any negative effect on the story. If anything the space of the set further progressed the story itself. The small room brought a confined feeling to the scene and kept a certain mystery on going in the movie. The acting still felt as though it did not transfer from theater yet however the actor playing Cesare I believe did a wonderful job playing the role.
ReplyDeleteA man with a movie camera is hard to write about because the movie never got out of the intro phase. Usually the beginning of a movie is action or suspense, leading to a slower part and eventually building up to a climax. I felt this movie was always staying at a high point and never really gave the audience a chance to breathe. The good thing about it is the audience will really keep engaged to it in order to see the next part, unfortunately if there is no next part the movie will be a disappointment. I did like the abstract of shots and the use of depth perception in order to film arty scenes. In movie now those shots are used as either inserts or establishing shots. It was very exciting to watch however I think there’s a reason that it was shut off before it finished.
I found the first film, “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,” to be a little difficult to get into in the beginning. I found the first sequence to be a little disorientating; I wasn’t sure which character to focus on and couldn’t completely understand the story being told. However, as the movie progressed I began to really enjoy some of the excellent technical innovations. The manner in which Wiene allows the story to unfold in the context of this frighteningly alive backdrop adds a whole new element of suspense and intrigue. The bold use of set design in the film presents a new way to establish subjectivity in cinema. I could definitely sense the foundations for early horror films here. Also, the movie’s narrative structure seems a bit more complex than earlier silent films. Just the mere fact that this film supplied a twist ending is worth noting in this cinematic period. It would be hard to point out another silent film that is so demanding of its audience. And the fact that Wiene did not dumb-down the movie or spell out the mystery adds another level of admiration for the project. Even today, films with such confidence in their audience are few and far between. Lately, we’ve observed that as cinema moves forward it tries to move closer to reality. For example, I see this pattern in the transition between the acting styles of Griffith’s “Broken Blossoms” and Weber’s “The Blot.” But “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” seems like a break from this pattern. I wouldn’t imagine comparing it with the silent cinema of America at the time. Based on this film, German cinema looks a bit more fractured, risky, and unsettling. The film makes this incredible attempt at psychoanalysis, demonstrating the value of cinema in examining the subconscious through art direction, camera placement, and narrative.
ReplyDeleteI was highly disappointed that the second feature, “Man with a Movie Camera,” was not shown all the way through. I was never aware of this film, and so it was a completely new experience for me. In the same way that people would call “Caligari” a film all about its set design, “Man with a Movie Camera” is a showcase for editing. Especially today, more than fifty years later, the movie evolves into a story about the nature and possibility of editing. This of course is supplement to what I believe is a clear, lucid story being told in the film through the combination of expressive images of Russian life and abstract metaphors for the power of cinema.
Lastly, I really see both these films as examples of cinema that constantly reminds the audience that this is not reality. It’s as if neither film lets the spectator become fully engrossed because they are so highly constructed. They aren’t, in my opinion, like “Battleship Potemkin” or “Nosferatu” which achieve a greater balance between soviet montage/expressionism and traditional storytelling. However, this uncompromised vision is perhaps each film’s greatest achievement. It doesn’t show blatant disregard for the audience, but rather recognition that the audience wants a cinematic experience that is challenging and still honest to the spirit of the time.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was the most unique and auteur-like movie we have seen since our first screening. First, I have to say that I absolutely loved the mise-en-scene of this movie. At first, I had a hard time grasping what mise-en-scene actually meant, but after watching this movie, I now completely understand. To put it quite concisely mise-en-scene is what the movie is able to make the audience “feel” just based on the setting and composition of each shot. In other words, all the dense woodsiness and dark shadows conjures feelings of uneasiness, unsettledness and tenseness. The world of Dr. Caligari is a warped one, which further translate to his warped mind.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite evident that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari inspired many of the horror movies today, especially in the case of Tim Burton. I was surprised to find out that the actual castle backdrop was used in Burton’s Edward Scissor Hands. It does not get more directly inspirational than that.
Aside from the mise-en-scene, I very much enjoyed the film’s actual plot. The actors’ performances were much more subdued and believable. I easily delve into the world of Dr. Caligari and soaked up every minute of it. I also, loved, loved, loved the twist ending! M knight Shyamalan has nothing on this movie!