Pandora's Box (1929)
August 21, 2015 12:06 PM - Subscribe
Louise Brooks stars in this 1929 silent film as the fiery, brash, yet innocent showgirl Lulu, whose beauty and vivacity has a devastating effect on everyone she comes in contact with. Available to stream commercial-free on Hulu or on YouTube.
Part of the Criterion On Hulu film club. This film was streaming for free on Hulu this week as part of Criterion's weekly free film festival. You can vote on next week's film here: Criterion Free Movie Of The Week
Part of the Criterion On Hulu film club. This film was streaming for free on Hulu this week as part of Criterion's weekly free film festival. You can vote on next week's film here: Criterion Free Movie Of The Week
I'd say that Beggars of Life is her most important film, well worth watching.
posted by Ideefixe at 5:16 PM on August 21, 2015
posted by Ideefixe at 5:16 PM on August 21, 2015
So 1929 is pretty late for a silent film and it totally shows, right? The dynamic framing, the crisp film stock, the moving camera, the naturalistic performances…if you saw this playing in a bar, you’d be surprised to learn that it doesn’t have sound.
Very much agreed. This became the defining feature of watching the film for me. I've never watched a Pabst film before, so I incorrectly came in expecting something more expressionistic in the vein of Murnau or Lang. For many of the reasons you mentioned, it felt "slick" and "Hollywood" in a way that ended up distancing me from it (well, that and the melodrama and the icky gender stuff that you mention).
The seamlessness is frequently impressive, though. There are many scenes of chaos that are remarkably legible (particularly in the backstage scenes early on) considering everything that's going on in the frame. Very few shots call attention to themselves. The focus is on the naturalistic performances and the storytelling which, when it's this story, didn't leave me with much.
Many of the links I've seen note that the film is based on Lulu, a Frank Wedekind play. I haven't seen any of the links note that Wedekind's other famous play is Spring Awakening, which was adapted into a hit Broadway musical about a decade ago.
posted by HeroZero at 5:21 PM on August 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Very much agreed. This became the defining feature of watching the film for me. I've never watched a Pabst film before, so I incorrectly came in expecting something more expressionistic in the vein of Murnau or Lang. For many of the reasons you mentioned, it felt "slick" and "Hollywood" in a way that ended up distancing me from it (well, that and the melodrama and the icky gender stuff that you mention).
The seamlessness is frequently impressive, though. There are many scenes of chaos that are remarkably legible (particularly in the backstage scenes early on) considering everything that's going on in the frame. Very few shots call attention to themselves. The focus is on the naturalistic performances and the storytelling which, when it's this story, didn't leave me with much.
Many of the links I've seen note that the film is based on Lulu, a Frank Wedekind play. I haven't seen any of the links note that Wedekind's other famous play is Spring Awakening, which was adapted into a hit Broadway musical about a decade ago.
posted by HeroZero at 5:21 PM on August 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you guys will indulge me a little bragging about my astute observational skills, I watched the first hour or so of this movie getting increasingly annoyed with the dinkely-dink music before it occurred to me, "Yeah, this is a silent movie. I don't have to listen to that." I had it on REALLY LOUD for some reason. It wouldn't be fair to judge the film on that, but I just want everyone to know that I was getting mad at a silent movie for being too noisy and it took me about an hour to think of a solution.
I also sometimes have a problem with morality tales like this because a) I'm not really a fan of morality tales as a rule, and b) especially not with moralities like this.
And holy cats, yes, that ending. Even by melodrama standards, that was strange and over the top and seemed sort of disjointed, like maybe that aspect should have been the story in itself. Anchoring a fictional story to some historical event as a plot twist could be done well, but it just didn't work for me in this case. The intro scene was excellent, but apart from that, I actually thought that plot turn was a little bit funny, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to.
But there are a lot of things to like about it, still. The scenes really are coherent and sometimes visually stunning, and I'm really glad I watched it too.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:21 AM on August 22, 2015
I also sometimes have a problem with morality tales like this because a) I'm not really a fan of morality tales as a rule, and b) especially not with moralities like this.
And holy cats, yes, that ending. Even by melodrama standards, that was strange and over the top and seemed sort of disjointed, like maybe that aspect should have been the story in itself. Anchoring a fictional story to some historical event as a plot twist could be done well, but it just didn't work for me in this case. The intro scene was excellent, but apart from that, I actually thought that plot turn was a little bit funny, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to.
But there are a lot of things to like about it, still. The scenes really are coherent and sometimes visually stunning, and I'm really glad I watched it too.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:21 AM on August 22, 2015
Louise Brooks and the cinematographer are the heroes of this. It's so lovely.
Agreed that the plot/morality/script is kind of a miasma of BS of ladyhood.
posted by Gucky at 6:00 PM on August 23, 2015
Agreed that the plot/morality/script is kind of a miasma of BS of ladyhood.
posted by Gucky at 6:00 PM on August 23, 2015
Wow, I am in love. Whatever the faults of the moralizing and melodrama here, Brooks is just mesmerizing. And has an actress ever been photographed better in a film? She just radiates.
posted by octothorpe at 5:21 PM on August 26, 2015
posted by octothorpe at 5:21 PM on August 26, 2015
Ian A.T.:Totally. I was very surprised by how "modern" everything looked. The furnishings, the clothes, etc. My internal "Platonic ideal" for "silent movie" has everything looking very old-timey and Victorian.So 1929 is pretty late for a silent film and it totally shows, right? The dynamic framing, the crisp film stock, the moving camera, the naturalistic performances…if you saw this playing in a bar, you’d be surprised to learn that it doesn’t have sound.
One reason might be that, at least in Europe, what was new in 1929 might still have been in use 25 years later. So for those post-war movies of the late '40s and early '50s only the clothes might have really changed. Even in Cléo from 5 to 7 some 33 years later, while there were parts that were obviously of the '60s, other things wouldn't have looked out of place in this movie.
Another thing I couldn't get over is how the movie dragged. I got to the wedding, thought I was probably three-fifths done with the movie, and it was closer to a third. It was fun to see a story told mostly visually. Even though the narrative gets pushed along by title cards in a few places. It puts The Naked Island in a whole new perspective for me.
The one thing I couldn't figure out is why it was so important to the story that Lulu was Jewish — or was it supposed to be Schon, perhaps that was his apartment and he bought the furniture — that Pabst ostentatiously included a menorah in the background in the first act. It never seems to come up otherwise. I read one review that speculates that Pabst intended an anti-Semitic message with the movie, but if it's really there it's a dog whistle I can't hear.
Anyway, I thought this was a fascinating picture, although I'm not sure I'd say I liked it.
posted by ob1quixote at 4:14 AM on August 27, 2015
I agree that the film dragged; 133 minutes seems about 20 minutes too long, there was a lot in the second half that probably could have been cut. Everything after the escape seemed to have a much slower editing style.
My internal "Platonic ideal" for "silent movie" has everything looking very old-timey and Victorian.
Part of that is that so many silent movies were historical dramas. A lot of the biggest ones were westerns, Civil War Dramas, Medieval adventures or biblical epics.
posted by octothorpe at 6:09 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
My internal "Platonic ideal" for "silent movie" has everything looking very old-timey and Victorian.
Part of that is that so many silent movies were historical dramas. A lot of the biggest ones were westerns, Civil War Dramas, Medieval adventures or biblical epics.
posted by octothorpe at 6:09 AM on August 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know what soundtrack the Hulu version used. When I saw it on TCM a few years back, it was classical. I know the Criterion DVD offers a choice.
I agree that it feels long, but I found it weirdly compelling. Plus there's the surprise at some of the plot twists and relationships. And the ending ... Yikes.
This is not a movie that I can recommend to most people I know, but I do like it.
posted by pmurray63 at 12:02 AM on August 31, 2015
I agree that it feels long, but I found it weirdly compelling. Plus there's the surprise at some of the plot twists and relationships. And the ending ... Yikes.
This is not a movie that I can recommend to most people I know, but I do like it.
posted by pmurray63 at 12:02 AM on August 31, 2015
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Ian A.T. at 4:10 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]