The Last Laugh (Der Letzte Mann)(1924)

So what is this one about?
Well, my beloved tells us,

One of German director F.W. Murnau's most brilliant silent films, The Last Laugh uses a constantly moving and subjective camera to capture the emotional anguish of a man whose life is suddenly devoid of meaning. An elderly hotel doorman is demoted to washroom attendant and must give up his prized uniform. Crestfallen, he spends the day wandering the city, getting drunk and trying desperately to hang on to a shred of hope.

Ah yes, depression, hopelessness, and crushing sadness. Sounds just like my type of film.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Hmm, lets see here....well, its been over thirty days since I got the movie, I got it on September 9 (YIKES) and returned it on October 29. Does that show you how long it is taking me to watch a movie?? I can't even price that out. shooooooooooooooooooot

And what did I think?
One of the things that was so incredible about this film was the lead actor, Emil Jannings (or, walrus mustache, if you prefer), and his ability to change his physical being in order to communicate the utter despair, hopelessness, and humiliation he felt at being demoted, and losing his beloved and respected job.

One thing I really hated about this film was the 'epilogue'. As mentioned, the movie was entirely silent and only twice were intertitles used to explain the movement of the story. The epilogue intertitle says

"Here the story should really end, for, in real life, the forlorn old man would have little to look forward to but death. The author took pity on him and has provided a quite improbable epilogue."

And, let me tell you, improbable is no joke. It turned a movie that was crushing and hopeless into a stupid, trite, "Hollywood" happy ending. (It is of course "hollywood" vs. hollywood, because it is a German film, and they didn't do hollywood. At least as far as I understand) The movie could have ended with the poor old walrus mustasche all crumpled in the bathroom where he is the attendant, with the night watchman's flashlight on him. I mean, he looks like some animal who is trapped in a cage. It was a really striking image. I don't know what it would have said about life, or film, or anything. I mean, if that movie doesn't say that life is totally worthless, that you can lose the only thing that makes your life worth living and then no one will care and everyone will just kick you while you're down, I don't know what will.

Instead, the filmmaker (really?!) decided to add an epilogue where the walrus mustache was an attendant to a rich man and then the rich man dies and leaves all his money to the attendant. Then as the newly rich walrus mustache uses the bathroom he is kind to the attendant and is mean to the rich person who treats the new attendant like trash. While I appreciate that message at the end about being kind to people who are "under" you, it just seemed out of sync with the rest of the film.

No matter, I thought it was pretty good. It would have been much better without the end, but then if it had ended where it should have ended I don't know what i would have thought.

The rest of the film was good enough. It was confusing to not have any intertitles telling me what was going on. It was something I was entirely not used to as afar as silent films go.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
It was interesting to see a film like this. Additionally, FW Murnau is like one of the most famous directors evar. However, the end of the movie really didn't do anything for me. On Netflix I gave this film a 3 out of 5. I think I will give it a 7 here. I mean, it was interesting (which is mostly the reason I get all these silent films, to experience what films used to be like as part of my ongoing film education) but it wasn't extraordinary.

The Man Who Laughs (1928)

So what is this one about?
Netflix tells us,

In this classic horror film based on a novel by Victor Hugo, Gwynplaine (Conrad Veidt), the son of an aristocrat, is kidnapped for political reasons and then disfigured by a gypsy surgeon, who leaves the boy's face paralyzed in a contorted smile. He finds refuge in a traveling theatre troupe, but his lineage is eventually discovered, and he soon finds himself being pulled back into the social and political world he was taken from as a boy.

AWWWWWWWESOME!

And how much did I pay to watch?
I am still averaging $1.54 per movie this month.

And what did I think?
I have only seen a few silent films in my film watching lifetime. Frankly, they are a bit tedious, but they are always incredibly interesting if only as a way of clarifying my understanding of the history of film.

This movie is sort of reminiscent of The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (1920) because, as one person on netflix put it, "this is straight up German Impressionist." However, because I have not seen enough silent movies I can't say that all silent movies aren't like this. Because the ones I've seen are all like this...even the ones made in the current day (TCoDC (2005) and Trapped by the Mormons (2005) hmm, maybe 2005 was the year of the 1920s silent film remakes...). I guess I just prefer German expressionist movies, so I should (and did) add other types of silent films to my queue, including Russian ones (yay!).

Interestingly enough, the actor who played Gwynplaine (aka: the laughing man) was Conrad Veidt. Veidt also played Cesare in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which is something I did not know before I watched the movie.

I wondered throughout how they got his mouth to look that way.
turns out, as the ever faithful internet movie data base tells me,

Gwynplaine's grotesque grin was achieved with prosthesis. Conrad Veidt was fitted with a set of dentures that had metal hooks to pull back the corners of his mouth. The only scene in which he did not wear the prosthesis is the scene where he is ravished by the Duchess Josiana.

They then go on to tell me something I already knew, but those of your reading this may not,

Gwynplaine's fixed grin and disturbing clown-like appearance was a key inspiration for comic book talents 'Bob Kane (I)' and Jerry Robinson in creating Batman's greatest enemy, The Joker.

oh ho ho ho ho. In fact, when I heard about this on NPR that is what made me queue the film, because I was curious to see the evolution of the Joker character.

Something else I didn't know about this film was that it was based on a book by Victor Hugo. Now, Hugo wrote one of my favorite books ever, Les Miserables, which was the inspiration for one of my favorite musicals.

Now, because this is a Victor Hugo story there was part of me that wanted the ending to be devastating...Like if Dea died before she knew Gwynplaine was alive. But you know me, thats the tragic romantic in me. ACTUALLY, upon watching the extra features (which I almost always do, when I like the movie) I learned that Hugo had written a different ending than the one in the film. Hugo's ending had Dea being so happy that Gwynplaine was alive that she actually died. I guess it was death by stress of having so much happen in such a short period of time. Gwynplaine was so crushed that she died that he walked off the deck of the ship into the ocean and drowned. Now THAT is a proper Hugo ending!

I guess none of that stuff tells you what I thought about the movie though, does it? It was more just some stuff I found interesting. Well, what did I think? I thought it was pretty cool. It was really dark but it wasn't a horror movie at all. It really did feel like a Hugo story. I thought the acting was excellent. I think silent movies, or at least my understanding of them, could easily be cheesy. But even though the use of dialogue on the black screen was infrequent I feel like the story was very easy to understand. In fact, I think the sparing use of the dialogue sort of allowed the audience to make up what they think the characters were saying to each other. Sometimes you could read their lips, but it is also fun to make that stuff up.

Additionally, both Conrad Veidt and Mary Philbin, Gwynplaine and Dea respectively, were wildly good looking. And I know it is shallow, but that really made you feel for these two basically pitiful characters, Gwynplaine had that hideous smile (which actually wasn't so bad) and Dea was blind.

Overall, I thought the movie was pretty awesome. It made me queue about 20 more silent classic films. So if the next few movies are silent ones, you'll have to bear with me. Or rather, maybe you should watch some of them too. They are really quite interesting.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
When it comes time to give a rating I often have to think hard. What am I rating on after all? Whether or not I liked the movie is often less important to me that how good the movie is overall. Granted sometimes I like things, I give things 10, that aren't on the same level as movies that I rate 10 that are really extraordinary films. Like Downfall and Love Actually aren't comparable. So it makes it tough.

Then again, how am I supposed to compare a movie from 1928 to a movie made in 2008? They are completely different. It is bizarre.

I liked that this movie was dark. I chalk that up to German expressionism. I thought the characters were very sympathetic to the audience. I loved them, and yet twistedly still wanted death to befall them--though I think wanting death and heartbreak to happen to them is different than wanting bad things to happen to them...right? I thought for a movie from its time it was quite nice visually and technically. (Except when the dog bit one of the characters and it was clearly a stuffed dog the man was holding...). So why can't I rate this movie a 10?

I dunno, because it wasn't one of the most astounding film achievements I have seen. I loved watching it, but it just wasn't perfect. So, I will say that it was excellent, not perfect, but certainly good. So, I'm gonna rate it an 8.5.