World Mysteries and Thrillers discussion

This is the first time I've ever gone around to members of any Goodreads book-group to advocate for a silent movie.

I'm making a special write-up in this instance. I even almost sent this 'round as one of our rare inbox circulars. This is a special exception.

Silent cinema from the 1920s is usually poorly esteemed by present-day movie-buffs. 'Silents' are widely disregarded by everyone; they're simply not hailed or saluted anymore.

I myself --a devotee of slapstick (Chaplin, Keaton) --have maybe only seen as little as 25-30 full-length silent features.

The tally of foreign silents included in that figure (from directors like Murnau, Von Sternburg, Von Stroheim, GW Pabst, Renoir, or Dreiser) numbers even fewer.

I admit that some silent films often feel like badly-delivered stage plays. Unsatisfying; often poorly-lit, awkwardly-acted. They frequently suffer 'rickety' and 'jittery' projection qualities.

It can be a labor for the viewer to settle down with the often ham-handed music accompaniment.

Or else, we are put off by the stiff, leaden, camera-work. And it can be difficult to follow a plot when you must read the dialogue from 'title-cards'.



Thus --like many other film fans --I'd long grown accustomed to perceiving most surviving examples of pre-sound to be 'clunky', or 'reedy'.

But for just briefly here, I'm going to contravene all our dismissive complacence.

Because there is one little-known --but truly colossal --silent film (which I myself just experienced for the first time) and which can overturn all these dismal impressions.

This is the title which will do it:

"Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler" (released in two parts, 1922).



Parts 1 & 2 demand a whopping time investment of four-and-a-half hours. But don't be daunted --the time passes effortlessly.

Here are the links:

Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler - Part 1
https://www.darkroom.film/content?vid...
Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler - Part 2
https://www.darkroom.film/content?vid...

Each installment is photographed in B&W, each was filmed in Germany after WWI and during the rise of Hitler.

Each is available as public domain property, ready-to-view, commercial-free.

And here is yet a third title (standard length, 124 mins) :
https://archive.org/details/DasTestam...

"The Testament of Dr. Mabuse" (1933 sequel, in German language, is a 'talkie', done with sound)

Mind me, now: I hardly ever impose such a sweeping recommendation to a gaggle of utter strangers.

But in this case, I honestly do feel everyone in this group should try this picture.

'Mabuse' is simply one of those rare works which fits the aphorism people sometimes advance, "If you can only experience just one example of its type, make it this one".



How to describe 'Mabuse'? I'm at a loss to encapsulate him.

Fictionally, he fits somewhere in the realm of Ian Fleming's James Bond, Brahm Stoker's 'Dracula'.

There's also connections to Sax Rohmer; Holmes & Moriarty, the French 'les Vampyrs' serial, or George duMaurier's 'Svengali'.



Note: the director in this case is very important to consider. The full "Mabuse" trio of films, are all directed by the famous German/Austrian talent, Fritz Lang.

You may associate Lang's name with tiles like 'Metropolis', or 'M'. It was with such titles that his reputation in the West was established. Lang is a pioneer, an innovator. He can be trusted.

I've seen at almost a dozen flicks from Lang's long filmography and I name 'Dr. Mabuse' his magnum opus. I just spent three evenings in a row absorbing it all.

No, I'm not guaranteeing that everyone will admire 'Mabuse'. But the creativity can't be denied. Bonds are burst and fetters are shed by this production. It's insanely inventive.

And the 'mental adjustment' one must undergo to digest a silent, 'speech-free' crime narrative is not that tough. Trust me that the rewards are as rich as I say they are.



BTW, 'Darkroom' (a free site) requires a sign-up; if this deters you there are 'no-strings' venues. But I strongly vouch for audio & picture quality on Darkroom.

Enough for now. Just try it --try it and then if you are disappointed, come back here and tell me I misled you falsely astray and that I wasted your time with codswallop, rot, & nonsense!

--Feliks D.

p.s. I also feel I'm warranted in recommending it to you since 'Mabuse' is adapted from an early-European work of detective literature. Thus, it cleaves tightly to the core purpose of this reading group (crime, mystery, & thrillers).

Thanks for the recommendation Feliks. I will invest the time and let you know my opinion.

I agree with your assessment that silent films often seem clunky and/or disjointed with no sound. It is similar to watching the original Star Trek TV series where the special effects often left a lot to be desired compared to what special effect houses were able to do 10 years later in Star Wars. Filmmakers simply did the best they could using the existing technology.

There are some excellent silent films that manage to transcend the limitations of the time. Turner Classic Movies used to show silent movies on Sunday nights (maybe they still do) that my wife and I used to watch. I can watch the original Nosferatu anytime (the recent remake was a disappointment) and I have the DVD of Les Vampires which is about French criminal gangs and not the noctural creatures of Stoker. Battleship Potemkin is an interesting movie with the iconic slaughter scene on the Odessa steps which has been mimicked by multiple directors (Coppala and DePalma stand out in my memory).

Chaplin is always entertaining as is Buster Keaton. If you can get past the blatant racism of Birth of A Nation (the Klan riding to the rescue!) and concentrate on D.W. Griffith's direction, you can see the potential for movies to affect audiences.

The first Oscar best picture winner in 1927 was a silent (Wings) with a young Gary Cooper playing a small part. I found John Ford's silent westerns such as Iron Horse to be decent but thought the original Ben Hur to be uninspiring (and yes, there is a chariot scene but it does not compare to the 1959 version).

Thx Gary. Look forward to your reaction. Yes indeed, I'm familiar with all the silents you just mentioned.

I somewhat agree with you higher-level remarks on FX trends but where we differ is in which way the trend is wending: better now or worse now?

When it comes to optical tricks, I generally feel that, 'less is more'.

The "mega-spectacular" FX of recent-release-comicbook-blockbusters always looks so fake and so phony to me. They are always so obviously computer generated.

There's just no magic in this --for me, anyway. I can't be 'immersed' in computer-CGI. Can't be transported, or 'swept up' into the story.

Said another way: the less intrusive FX usually make the better movie. When served up in heaping proportions, they serve as a major distraction; whereas 'clunky'-seeming FX are more realistic to the world we live in.

Why/how? Because the world around us is inherently simple. The theater stage is inherently simple, and so too do the better FX excel whenever they match that simplicity.

Simplicity being more authentic, allows the audience to focus on true complexity --that being, human nature (as conveyed by actors).

Additionally--as any classics buff knows --you can still find "ancient" movies which deploy effects which not only still hold up today --they're continually better even than the very newest effects being trotted out.

George Pal; or the work of The Archers, or 'Forbidden Planet', Howard Hawks' 'The Thing', Kubrick's 'Space Odyssey', or the 'Nosferatu', you just cited; or even 'Dr. Mabuse'; to name just a few. Or how about the original "Outer Limits" TV series? The original 'Twilight Zone' with Serling?

Anyway. No matter. It's an endless divide, this topic. Back to Mabuse --I'd always heard about it, but never gave it much thought, for the reasons I stated above. But, I grossly under-estimated it.

Finally --after hearing Martin Scorcese repeatedly praise it --this convinced me to investigate. Its on his list of essential foreign flicks.

Frankly, I was stunned, and it takes a lot to stun me these days. So that's why I passed on my commendation to you all.

I think it truly is an 'essential' for fans of crime lit.

Update: I believe I will send this around to people's inboxes.

No doubt that the quality of special effects has increased. The original Outer Limits costumes are definitely inferior to what could be done today but the episodes still work as entertainment because of the story.

I believe what your complaint (and mine frankly) is that is appears that movies now seem exist for special effects instead of special effects supporting the story. Hey, we can show Spider-Man swinging on a web through New York skyscrapers without animation so let's write a story around that. It should be the other way around. We have a solid story and wouldn't it be cool if he is chasing the bad guys though the skyline.

Your identification of superhero movies as an example of this plague upon our house is excellent. My son has dragged me to everyone one of them and I swear the story lines are all the same, they just change the villains.

A Scorcese recommendation is high praise indeed so I looking forward to viewing.

I rec'd your GR msg and might watch these silents. If I do, I will post my reaction.

Super. Thanks