criterionforum.org

WOW! Just another Eclipse release which easily eclipses (bad pun) CC's 'main' releases of the month. I've never been able to see any of these films before, so I'm really, really happy about this set. My one 'complaint': where's "The Merry Widow"? Probably not a musical in the strict sense, but being based on Lehar's operetta it would have made a great addition.

zedz wrote:

Max von Mayerling wrote:I don't think I can buy a box set in which 3 of the 4 films star Maurice Chevalier. The man strikes me as ham personified, at least on film. But perhaps I just need a proper education.

Your homework

I regret to say that I've seen this already, and ... well, perhaps I need to see it again. With respect to the Lubitsch box, I will certainly be sure to at least see all these, in part because I have enjoyed the hell out of many of Lubitch's flims, and in part because of the enthusiasm of those on this board.

Given that this is going to be bare bones, I would appreciate any posts folks are willing to contribute regarding their feelings and thoughts with respect to these films, so as to enhance my appreciation.

Tommaso wrote:My one 'complaint': where's "The Merry Widow"? Probably not a musical in the strict sense, but being based on Lehar's operetta it would have made a great addition.

Warner is working on that one. Or so they say.

Max von Mayerling wrote:With respect to the Lubitsch box, I will certainly be sure to at least see all these, in part because I have enjoyed the hell out of many of Lubitch's flims, and in part because of the enthusiasm of those on this board.

Lubitsch did wonders with the usually insufferable Herbert Marshall in Trouble in Paradise, so I have high hopes for these.

GringoTex wrote:

Max von Mayerling wrote:I have enjoyed the hell out of many of Lubitch's flims, and in part because of the enthusiasm of those on this board.

Lubitsch did wonders with the usually insufferable Herbert Marshall in Trouble in Paradise, so I have high hopes for these.

Hey now, Herbert Marshall was also very good in Wyler's The Good Fairy.

zedz wrote:

Max von Mayerling wrote:I don't think I can buy a box set in which 3 of the 4 films star Maurice Chevalier. The man strikes me as ham personified, at least on film. But perhaps I just need a proper education.

Your homework

word.

Via_Chicago wrote:

GringoTex wrote:

Max von Mayerling wrote:With respect to the Lubitsch box, I will certainly be sure to at least see all these, in part because I have enjoyed the hell out of many of Lubitch's flims, and in part because of the enthusiasm of those on this board.

Lubitsch did wonders with the usually insufferable Herbert Marshall in Trouble in Paradise, so I have high hopes for these.

Hey now, Herbert Marshall was also very good in Wyler's The Good Fairy.

and the Razor's Edge

And in Premingers ANGEL FACE.

and von Sterns BLONDE VENUS.

And Hitch's Foreign Correspondent and Wyler's The Letter....

There's nothing the least wrong with Marshall as a supporting actor.

...

He actually speaks a lot like Terence Davies, of all people.

The Eclipse Web site makes no reference to the fact that ONE HOUR WITH YOU was directed by George Cukor under the supervision of Ernst Lubitsch (I've never read a definitive account of how this collaboration worked out in practice).

He has all the aristocratic sophistication and elegance that George Sanders and his (more cheerful) brother always reached for with their voices and mannerisms, yet rarely pulled off 100%. Whereas they often sounded "mannered" (despite their alleged upper-class White Russian ancestry), Marshall registers as a genuine aristocrat (iin its' better sense)... this, as opposed to Sanders 1&2, on the visual plane as well as the vocal plane. He had a genuinely distinguished gentility and charm the other two mostly lacked.

He was poignant and natural as hell in ANGEL FACE.

They didn't work around his shot-off leg and its attendant limp for nothing. The guy was the real thing.

To be fair, I think Sanders specialized in playing the darker shades of the "aristocratic" character; he often conveys a sense of moral rot that isn't Marshall's forte.

As for Chevalier, there is a sense in which he was a "ham." His origins are in the music hall, and unlike say Jean Gabin he never left its essentially presentational style behind. Chevalier is typically somewhat stiff (in that, he stays in one place within the frame), with frequent asides to the invisible audience, and so he sort of forces the scenes he's in into a kind of theatrical mise-en-scene. His facial expressions are appropriately broad but he varies and modulates them brilliantly.

Lubitsch works wonders with all this, you might even say he builds the style of his early musicals around it (or you might say that his roots in light opera make him an ideal director for Chevalier).

jonah.77 wrote:To be fair, I think Sanders specialized in playing the darker shades of the "aristocratic" character; he often conveys a sense of moral rot that isn't Marshall's forte.

I think Sanders sort've wound up there. If he had his druthers he'd have been A-list leading man all the way, rather than playing in stuff like VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED and the Brahms (which are great don't get me wrong). Even taking the three pictures mentioned (which I chose for a reason), you see Sanders playing a good cheerful fellow.. and for my money the man just didn't carry HM's ease and charm and natual aristocracy.

In the end I think we're both coming at the same point from different angles. You're saying something about Sanders and HM which mirror what I'm saying... one came off rough-hewn, and one came off far more charming. But I think these were results of the men they were, not role-preferences or acting styles. It carries thru the entire careers of both, role to role to role.

jonah.77 wrote:The Eclipse Web site makes no reference to the fact that ONE HOUR WITH YOU was directed by George Cukor under the supervision of Ernst Lubitsch (I've never read a definitive account of how this collaboration worked out in practice).

This page does a pretty good job of discussing it. Lubitsch produced the film and worked out the script with Samson Raphaelson; Cukor was originally assigned to direct it on his own, but after the first week, Lubitsch came on to the set and they basically operated as co-directors.

The page is inaccurate, though, in saying that Cukor's contribution wasn't acknowledged. The credits say "Directed by Ernst Lubitsch, assisted by George Cukor."

It's interesting to compare One Hour With You to the original version, The Marriage Circle, to note how Lubitsch's style had gotten much more whimsical and broader (sort of like some of his German comedies). Often you'll see a fairly straightforward scene from Marriage Circle re-done in One Hour With You with some broader or wackier jokes added, courtesy of what Raphaelson called "wild doodles" (crazy jokes or lines that he and Lubitsch would come up with, and then leave in the script).

Jaime_Weinman wrote:It's interesting to compare One Hour With You to the original version, The Marriage Circle, to note how Lubitsch's style had gotten much more whimsical and broader (sort of like some of his German comedies). Often you'll see a fairly straightforward scene from Marriage Circle re-done in One Hour With You with some broader or wackier jokes added, courtesy of what Raphaelson called "wild doodles" (crazy jokes or lines that he and Lubitsch would come up with, and then leave in the script).

Frankly, I think "Marriage Circle" is a vastly better film than "One Hour With You" (which is nonetheless great fun). It's not like "MC was stolid in the first place -- indeed it might be even more wickedly sly. And I wish someone would adopt the equally wonderful "So This Is Paris",

Michael Kerpan wrote:Frankly, I think "Marriage Circle" is a vastly better film than "One Hour With You" (which is nonetheless great fun). It's not like "MC was stolid in the first place -- indeed it might be even more wickedly sly.

I don't disagree (or, put it another way, I agree) that The Marriage Circle is the better picture. You can actually care about the characters in the original, whereas in OHWY they're more cartoonish. I just find it interesting to compare the two versions and note how Lubitsch had already gone from sly comedies of manners -- which is what he was known for in the '20s -- to something broader and sillier. (And bawdier as well; we know that Pre-Code movies were freer than what came after, but they also had a lot more raunchy content than what had come before.)

P.S. I wanted to add that to me, the definite highlight of the box is The Smiling Lieutenant. I remember this was the hit of a Lubisch retrospective a few years ago; the audience loved it so much that it was given an unscheduled repeat showing. It isn't so great as a musical (the Oscar Straus operetta it's based on is actually really wonderful, but because the movie was mostly cast with non-singers, Straus wrote new, simpler songs and used his original score as background music), but it's extraordinarily funny and even strangely touching in some scenes.

Also, for those who are Chevalier-phobic, this is a good film to start with because his character is portrayed as kind of a horny jerk, so even if you don't like Chevalier's personality, the movie still works.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Frankly, I think "Marriage Circle" is a vastly better film than "One Hour With You" (which is nonetheless great fun). It's not like "MC was stolid in the first place -- indeed it might be even more wickedly sly. And I wish someone would adopt the equally wonderful "So This Is Paris",

I wanted to add my praise for "So This Is Paris", maybe my favorite non-Keaton silent comedy. "Marriage Circle" and "Lady Windermere's Fan" are perhaps even more perfectly constructed, both formally and storywise, but nothing makes me laugh as long and hard as "Paris". These musicals are fantastic, but an American Lubitsch silents collection would be truly amazing--and eye-opening: collectively they're arguably the high-point of his arch, yet subtle style.

As for Herbert Marshall, I can only hail his work with Lubitsch and Dietrich in the oft-overlooked and hard-to-find "Angel" as another proof of greatness. It's my favorite 30s Lubitsch, his most emotionally complex work of this period as well as the most audaciously stylized.

Has anyone here actually seen "Rosita"? I've never heard of it being shown anywhere.

jonah.77 wrote:As for Chevalier, an entire book should be written on his performance style, but there's a sense in which he was a "ham." His origins are in the music hall, and unlike say Jean Gabin he never left its essentially presentational style behind. Chevalier is typically somewhat stiff (in that, he stays in one place within the frame), with frequent asides to the invisible audience, and so he sort of forces the scenes he's in into a kind of theatrical mise-en-scene. His facial expressions are appropriately broad but he varies and modulates them brilliantly.

Lubitsch works wonders with all this, you might even say he builds the style of his early musicals around it (or you might say that his roots in light opera make him an ideal director for Chevalier). By comparison Minnelli is only occasionally able to make the best of it.

Thanks, jonah.77 - this was actually very helpful. I'm not sure I'm sold on the man, but this is an interesting perspective. I knew about the music hall background, but I hadn't quite thought of how Lubitsch might have been working with it.

And as for Herbert Marshall, between Trouble in Paradise & The Good Fairy, I want to be his dog.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Has anyone here actually seen "Rosita"? I've never heard of it being shown anywhere.

I have; it's quite good, although it loses a lot by the poor quality print that's apparently all that remains. It's taken from a Russian print with English retitles. It's rather saucy in the usual Lubitsch manner, i.e. completely unlike any other Pickford films. I can see why she didn't like it in later years, but it's unfortunate that she disliked it enough to disown it and refuse to allow her print to be preserved.

vivahawks wrote:As for Herbert Marshall, I can only hail his work with Lubitsch and Dietrich in the oft-overlooked and hard-to-find "Angel" as another proof of greatness. It's my favorite 30s Lubitsch, his most emotionally complex work of this period as well as the most audaciously stylized.

If anyone's unaware, ANGEL was just released as a stand-alone in Spain. Just got my copy but haven't looked at it yet, but if it's similar to the other Universal-owned titles released exclusively in Spain, it should be quite nice.

Danny Burk wrote:

Michael Kerpan wrote:Has anyone here actually seen "Rosita"? I've never heard of it being shown anywhere.

I have; it's quite good, although it loses a lot by the poor quality print that's apparently all that remains. It's taken from a Russian print with English retitles. It's rather saucy in the usual Lubitsch manner, i.e. completely unlike any other Pickford films. I can see why she didn't like it in later years, but it's unfortunate that she disliked it enough to disown it and refuse to allow her print to be preserved.

I thought this has English titles to start out with?

I assume that there is essentially no chance of a better print ever turning up. ;~{

Michael Kerpan wrote:I thought this has English titles to start out with?

I assume that there is essentially no chance of a better print ever turning up.

Yes, it had English titles originally. The surviving print originated from a Russian archive and had English titles retranslated and put back in place. The print is murky and loses a lot of detail in shadow areas; IIRC, the highlights are washed out as well. Not a good job of printing.

Doubtful that anything better will turn up; I heard a few years ago that there was a reel or two of nitrate still existing at the Pickford Estate, but being allowed to rot per Mary's wishes

Herbert Marshall is an excellent actor. He was the inspiration for Cary Grant, who modelled himself on Marshall's early 30's sophisticated suave performances.
Marshall was able to convey innuendo brilliantly. His career was surely affected by the emergence of the Breen code. He had only a few interesting roles in post-35 Hollywood fairyland.

As for Lubitsch, Angel, is my favourite. The manage a triois is handled so smoothly, and is more interesting than Design for Living.
I also like Student Prince in Old Heidelberg, with it's stunning visuals.

I am very happy with this Eclipse set. I just hope the prints look better than the Universal laserdisc release ( which was impressive for it's time).

I am looking forward for The Merry Widow.

As for Chevalier, one has to be open-minded. MacDonald looking extremely erotic in transparent lingerie, nicely compensates.