It seems nowadays I dedicate myself for the small details. The web is full with complete reviews of films which – according to the limited extense of an average analysis – are overlooking their attention on the details which in fact are the cinematic building blocks of a given movie.
Yesterday I decided to pay off an old debt and watched Erich von Stroheim's masterwork from 1924, Greed (1999 restored version, 239 min, where the missing parts are substituted with stills (very likely that the film remains as a torso forever since the original parts were destroyed (the footage have been rendered down for the silver nitrate) during the studio's (MGM) unmerciful recut)). Frank Norris's bitter story about McTeague, the simple fellow driven by his even humble instincts becomes extremely grim in the film...
But let's see an example on the silent film's naive, innocent try to identify one of his characters. The scene what I uploaded yesterday shows an argument between two former friends, McTeague and a greedy Marcus. The latter – drinking too much – can't stand anymore McTeague's sudden wealth (his wife, Trina, a previous girlfriend of Marcus won $5.000 on the lotto), and unexpectedly attacks him in the pub. He grabs a knife...
Yes, he grabs the knife, but how we see that? How we realize that Marcus is the one who opens a penknife? The interesting solution of identifying Marcus is coming around the 19th second in the video where a close up shows the penknife. Seconds later we see who opens it, but at the very moment of the close up (which unfolds itself as an analytical shot on Marcus) we can't be sure who is who. And then comes the solution with the help of a small dark ribbon...
If you liked Gance's Napoleon or you are an immersive reader of a long novel, I can assure that you won't be disappointed to watch this truly milestone of the cinematic history.
9/10
Posts
