This film, often called The Somnambulist, is covered
in any introductory film course. Is it worthwhile on its own?
Premise
A man tells a tale about a somnambulist and his master. (The
somnambulist is asleep, and will follow the orders of his master.
In
this case, he kills.)
Cast, Crew, and Other Info
Directed by Robert Wiene, and starring Werner Krauss, Conrad
Veidt,
Friedrich Feher, and Lil Dagover. Complete details are available
on
the IMDB
page.
High Point
In what may be the first instance of studio interference in a film,
the studio demanded that the movie be changed into something
with less
killing. Rather than change the existing product, the director
chose
to add a framing story (ie. the intial courtyard scene, as well as
the
final courtyard scene and everything that follows it.) I like this
new ending much better, myself.
Low Point
He just keels over?
Preliminary Words
Movie-making has changed a lot since this was made in 1920.
Movies
today have sound, colour, and all sorts of other newfangled little
devices, like low and high angle camera shots, tracking shots,
dissolves, and so forth. I can’t decide if this should be reviewed
by
the standards of today (which leaves it at a huge disadvantage),
or by
the standards of its creation (which I may not be qualified to
judge,
not having been around to see the state of movies in 1920.)
What I’m
going to do is try to do both. I’ll review it from the historical
perspective as best I understand it, and from the modern
perspective.
The Scores
Historical | Modern | |
---|---|---|
Originality | The concept of telling a complete story this long was still pretty new in 1920. Add in the nature of the horror flick, which used very human villains and one heck of a twist ending, and it scores well. I give it 6 out of 6. |
It’s a serial killer flick with a decent twist ending. I give it 3 out of 6. |
Effects | They didn’t use a lot of effects. In fact, apart from the form the hero was watching through the window, everything could be filmed as a completely physical effect. There were no supernatural elements, after all. I give it 4 out of 6. |
The only effect was entirely unconvincing. I give it 2 out of 6. |
Story | The story begins with a simple plot, and then becomes something much more complicated than anything else I’ve seen from the era. I give it 5 out of 6. |
The story isn’t complicated by today’s film standards; much like the original Star Wars, we get a few known archetypes thrown in at the start, and then we run with them. The twist ending saves it to some degree, and it receives 3 out of 6. |
Acting | The acting was well done for the era. Without sound, they were forced to use extreme emotions and extravagent body language to get the point across. I give it 5 out of 6. |
The acting depends on extreme emotions and extravagent body language, overplayed in every scene. They’d be unemployed hacks if they tried this today. Krauss was the only one with a sense of subtlety. I give it 2 out of 6. |
Production | The production was amazing in its time. Dual irises on the screen was a nice touch I rarely hear about now. Instead, people rave about the set designs. As the pinnacle of German Expressionist film, it’s loaded with warped sets, exaggerated props, and buildings and objects without a right angle to be seen. The stripes in Caligari’s hair match the markings on his gloves, and the cast was chosen for physical attributes that play to their character types. It was exceptional, and its influences are still felt today. (Just rent any Tim Burton film.) I give it 6 out of 6. |
There was no sound, the camera is extremely utilitarian, and the lighting level was so limited by the film stock that they ended up painting shadows on the sets to compensate. The set and costume designs are really the only aspects that hold up today. I give it 3 out of 6. |
Emotional Response | As a piece of history, it’s very interesting. This, in addition to the story, earns it a 5 out of 6. |
The first 40 minutes of a 50 minute film drag on lifelessly. The ending saves it from the doldrums that it’s in by virtue of having been copied dozens and dozens of times since. I give it 2 out of 6. |
Overall | If you’re interested in the history of cinema and in old set designs and storytelling, this is mandatory viewing. Fortunately for you, it’s available at very good prices. (My DVD copy cost me $6.99 Canadian at the local London Drugs. I picked up Nosferatu and the original Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde at the same price at the same location.) I give it 6 out of 6. |
If you’re not interested in where movies have been, this will bore the snot out of you. Find something else, instead. I give it 2 out of 6, saved from a score of 1 by the ending. |
Total | 37 out of 42 | 17 out of 42 |
Far superior edition
I recently upgraded the Madacy release I reviewed here to
the version released by Kino Video. If you’re interested
in owning this movie, the Kino
Video release, is far, far superior, complete with
colour tinting, fully restored intertitles and footage
(making it about 20 minutes longer than the edition I
reviewed) and two different audio tracks to choose from.
(I’ve upgraded my copies of Nosferatu and Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as well, also to Kino releases.
I picked up Kino’s Metropolis restoration and
The General a while back, too. I’m very happy
with the company.)