Post by Fickle81 on May 8, 2006 8:01:01 GMT -5
MINOR SPOILERS
I have to be honest. While I consider myself a film aficionado,silent movies really aren't my bag at all. Not that I don't acknowledge their impact on film and society in general,because I do. I also realise that this was the only way to make films back in those days. However,to me,they are the most blatently dated of all movies and I find them significantly harder to pay attention to than talkies. Basically most of the faults I have against Dr. Caligari are the faults I have against silent film in general (like the ridiculous physical overacting,not everything the characters say/mouth being displayed on the screen,etc).
Having said that,Dr. Caligari makes up for this with its unique plot (at the time) and still unique today mis en scene and cinematography. This is one of the first films to apply the unreliable narrator technique. Not to mention its dreamlike environments and great use of color (its a black and white film,but the different hues of the film are definatly noticeable). For all this alone,Caligari has definatly earned most of the praise it has recieved.
Personally,it wouldn't bother me one bit to see this actually get remade as a talkie...but it would have to be done right. It would have to be a very visual director (somebody like Burton would actually work well for it) and some of the storyline elements spruced up (it shouldn't be a shot for shot remake with just dialogue added in).
I do have some very minor peeves about the ending,because a few details weren't made as clear as I would have liked them to be. Other than that though,for a silent film,its quite good.
If you have the attention span,which I think is a requirement for all silent films,definatly check it out.
4/5
I have to be honest. While I consider myself a film aficionado,silent movies really aren't my bag at all. Not that I don't acknowledge their impact on film and society in general,because I do. I also realise that this was the only way to make films back in those days. However,to me,they are the most blatently dated of all movies and I find them significantly harder to pay attention to than talkies. Basically most of the faults I have against Dr. Caligari are the faults I have against silent film in general (like the ridiculous physical overacting,not everything the characters say/mouth being displayed on the screen,etc).
Having said that,Dr. Caligari makes up for this with its unique plot (at the time) and still unique today mis en scene and cinematography. This is one of the first films to apply the unreliable narrator technique. Not to mention its dreamlike environments and great use of color (its a black and white film,but the different hues of the film are definatly noticeable). For all this alone,Caligari has definatly earned most of the praise it has recieved.
Personally,it wouldn't bother me one bit to see this actually get remade as a talkie...but it would have to be done right. It would have to be a very visual director (somebody like Burton would actually work well for it) and some of the storyline elements spruced up (it shouldn't be a shot for shot remake with just dialogue added in).
I do have some very minor peeves about the ending,because a few details weren't made as clear as I would have liked them to be. Other than that though,for a silent film,its quite good.
If you have the attention span,which I think is a requirement for all silent films,definatly check it out.
4/5