![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scifirenegadeWe going back in time.
If you've known me, you know how much I love the seventh and first Doctors eras. I have written extensively on The Adventures of Sir Lancelot (see my pimp post at Small Fandom Fest, and I'm planning to expand on it). Back to the Future and Ghostbusters get lots of love (with reason! They're some of my favourite films!). I cannot write about The Little Prince. It makes me so emotional.
So, what? What is something that I love dearly, and haven't yet talked about? What is something that I love dearly, and is not known to many people?
Why not a pretty unknown film from 1929, directed by Pál Fejos of Lonesome fame, with the leads from The Man Who Laughs?
The Last Performance was treated by Universal as a "Jewel", the quotes are intentional. They didn't really care for it. I'm pretty sure Fejos didn't care for it either. It even reused the same sets as 1925's Phantom of the Opera!
And then there's the plot. Famous illusionist and hypnotist Erik is in love with his barely legal assistant Julie, while his other assistant Buffo is jealous (because he loves Julie? Because he wants Erik's place? Because he loves Erik? Is he under Erik's spell?).
One of the stagehands, named Mark, breaks into Erik's flat and starts eating his turkey leg. Erik catches him in the act and, at Julie's request, hires him as Buffo's assistant. Julie and Mark fall in love. Erik is sad. There's murder most foul.
So why, why does a film with a paper thin plot, with a director who lost interest and a studio that didn't care has me in a chokehold?
It's beautiful to look at. Fejos and Hal Mohr have an eye for memorable, ambitious shots, even in their most "whatever" films. You have people lying down on the floor; Mohr invented a bloody camera crane for this film!
Just look at this scene in which Erik hypnotises a member of the audience.
It's intense. It's fast-paced.
The performances are incredible. Everyone does an incredible job. Of course, Veidt is a highlight (look at who's writing this), but Fenton is such a fabulous creature in this. You pretty much managed to outfab Herr Veidt, and for that, I must salute you.
I really like the characters as well. Poor Mark doesn't have much going on, and I would say the same for Julie (since Mary Philbin seems to be doing her whole "I'm pretty and nice" routine), but it hit me that maybe she's doing this because she's got Erik wrapped around her finger, giving her some depth. We'll get to it. I got a little ahead of myself when talking about Buffo.
And then there's Erik. A man of contradiction: controlling but controllable, imposing but goofy. He's supposed to be in his fifties, he acts like a teenager. He's a famous illusionist and hypnotist, with a flair for the dramatic, dark eye make-up and lipstick that he never takes off.
Ross postcard (filmforfancy@Flickr)
A hypnotist that could have anyone he wants under his spell, but not Julie; everything she wants, he'll give. He's an imposing figure on stage, off-stage he's goofy, makes fun of himself, kisses pictures with his beloved on it. He's fascinating.
There are two "daggers" in the room, however: the part-talkie version and the breakdown scene.
The film only survives as a silent, but there are records of a part-talkie version. The information is hazy and inconsistent, but from what we know, the talkie bit was added late into production. Only the last reel would have had dialogue (from Fenton, Philbin and Veidt). That version had a limited release and was quickly substituted by the silent version.
Veidt was already in Germany filming The Last Company when he recorded his dialogue, so we get these amusing pictures of him on the phone with stubble (he was doing a war film after all!).
(aikainkauna@Tumblr)
We also have photographic evidence of a missing scene. Erik, upon discovering Julie and Mark together, breaks down in his flat. I'm assuming the scene was censored out. An American print viewed by John Soister in the early 2000s didn't even have the hypnotism scene, possibly for the same reason.
(staregazing@archive.org)
What can I say? I love this film. It's interesting, dramatic, beautiful to look at (both the cinematography and Veidt hehe).
Challenge #6
In your own space, share a favourite piece of original canon (a show, a specific TV episode, a storyline, a book or series, a scene from a movie, etc) and explain why you love it so much. . Post your answer to today’s challenge in your own space and leave a comment in this post saying you did it. Include a link to your post if you feel comfortable doing so.
If you've known me, you know how much I love the seventh and first Doctors eras. I have written extensively on The Adventures of Sir Lancelot (see my pimp post at Small Fandom Fest, and I'm planning to expand on it). Back to the Future and Ghostbusters get lots of love (with reason! They're some of my favourite films!). I cannot write about The Little Prince. It makes me so emotional.
So, what? What is something that I love dearly, and haven't yet talked about? What is something that I love dearly, and is not known to many people?
Why not a pretty unknown film from 1929, directed by Pál Fejos of Lonesome fame, with the leads from The Man Who Laughs?
The Last Performance was treated by Universal as a "Jewel", the quotes are intentional. They didn't really care for it. I'm pretty sure Fejos didn't care for it either. It even reused the same sets as 1925's Phantom of the Opera!
And then there's the plot. Famous illusionist and hypnotist Erik is in love with his barely legal assistant Julie, while his other assistant Buffo is jealous (because he loves Julie? Because he wants Erik's place? Because he loves Erik? Is he under Erik's spell?).
One of the stagehands, named Mark, breaks into Erik's flat and starts eating his turkey leg. Erik catches him in the act and, at Julie's request, hires him as Buffo's assistant. Julie and Mark fall in love. Erik is sad. There's murder most foul.
So why, why does a film with a paper thin plot, with a director who lost interest and a studio that didn't care has me in a chokehold?
It's beautiful to look at. Fejos and Hal Mohr have an eye for memorable, ambitious shots, even in their most "whatever" films. You have people lying down on the floor; Mohr invented a bloody camera crane for this film!
Just look at this scene in which Erik hypnotises a member of the audience.
It's intense. It's fast-paced.
The performances are incredible. Everyone does an incredible job. Of course, Veidt is a highlight (look at who's writing this), but Fenton is such a fabulous creature in this. You pretty much managed to outfab Herr Veidt, and for that, I must salute you.
I really like the characters as well. Poor Mark doesn't have much going on, and I would say the same for Julie (since Mary Philbin seems to be doing her whole "I'm pretty and nice" routine), but it hit me that maybe she's doing this because she's got Erik wrapped around her finger, giving her some depth. We'll get to it. I got a little ahead of myself when talking about Buffo.
And then there's Erik. A man of contradiction: controlling but controllable, imposing but goofy. He's supposed to be in his fifties, he acts like a teenager. He's a famous illusionist and hypnotist, with a flair for the dramatic, dark eye make-up and lipstick that he never takes off.
Ross postcard (filmforfancy@Flickr)
A hypnotist that could have anyone he wants under his spell, but not Julie; everything she wants, he'll give. He's an imposing figure on stage, off-stage he's goofy, makes fun of himself, kisses pictures with his beloved on it. He's fascinating.
There are two "daggers" in the room, however: the part-talkie version and the breakdown scene.
The film only survives as a silent, but there are records of a part-talkie version. The information is hazy and inconsistent, but from what we know, the talkie bit was added late into production. Only the last reel would have had dialogue (from Fenton, Philbin and Veidt). That version had a limited release and was quickly substituted by the silent version.
Veidt was already in Germany filming The Last Company when he recorded his dialogue, so we get these amusing pictures of him on the phone with stubble (he was doing a war film after all!).
(aikainkauna@Tumblr)
We also have photographic evidence of a missing scene. Erik, upon discovering Julie and Mark together, breaks down in his flat. I'm assuming the scene was censored out. An American print viewed by John Soister in the early 2000s didn't even have the hypnotism scene, possibly for the same reason.
(staregazing@archive.org)
What can I say? I love this film. It's interesting, dramatic, beautiful to look at (both the cinematography and Veidt hehe).
no subject
Date: 31 Jan 2024 15:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2024 07:48 (UTC)I would also say that Mr Chaney's films aren't really horror, so's The Last Performance, they just use elements one associates with horror.
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2024 04:32 (UTC)Thank you. ❤️
no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2024 07:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2024 07:36 (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Feb 2024 07:49 (UTC)