DShepFilm wrote:Bob, that's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
I have run MASTER OF THE HOUSE at Cinefest, at Niles, at Emory University, and at small screenings for friends and the response has always been genuine enthusiasm. The film also has a strong reputation at considerable variance with your judgment.
I don't see much constructive point in telling people that a film of real stature is "torture" before they have the chance to see it and decide for themselves. Tom Mix it ain't, but it's a purposeful story, beautifully structured and acted, and with lots of humor characteristic of early Dreyer although absent from his later work. If Criterion is willing to do a first class release of a silent Carl Dreyer film, they deserve our support and I for one think that no one except you is likely to be disappointed.
David Shepard
David,
I love you like a brother, and so I won't take offense. My opinion of "Master of the House" and of Dreyer in general is just THAT--an opinion. Neither right nor wrong, but it is considered. I have read books and articles on Dreyer, have made a point to see all his films, and cannot fathom why he is held in such high regard by critics. It has always seemed to me that he made his best films, i.e. "The Parsons Widow," "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and "Vampyr," outside of Denmark--with "The Parson's Widow" (and thank you for introducing me to that many years ago) being his one real masterpiece. A number of years ago on alt.movies.silent I (only partly facetiously) compared "The Passion of Joan of Arc" with "The White Outlaw" (Davis, 1929) directed by Robert J. Horner and starring Art Acord. Both films are largely told in closeups and subtitles, and not very effective as motion pictures. The only difference being that Falconetti is no Art Acord--or should that be vicey versey? ;-} Dovzhenko's Earth falls in the same category, as well, IMHO.
While it is true that I'd be happy to put up "The Great K & A Train Robbery" or "The Last Trail"--both Tom Mix films--in a run-off with "Master of the House" and be certain that general audiences would prefer the Mix to the Dreyer, the implied dig that my cinematic palette is xenophobic and therefore less sophisticated I will attribute to your desire to defend your own opinion about Dreyer's work at my tough-hided expense. I have more than a smattering of silent world cinema under my viewing belt (if I may garble my metaphors), and I'll take L'Herbier, Duvivier, Clair, Murnau, Lubitsch, Leni, Alexandrov, Sjostrom, Asquith, or Volkoff over Carl Th. Dreyer any day of the week--and twice on Sundays.
Whatever my opinion, however, I'm certain that Criterion based their release of "Master of the House" on considered business judgment that there would be sufficient sales to justify the expense and turn at least a small profit, and its success or failure does not rest on what opinion I might have of it. I would urge anyone who has not seen "Master of the House" to rush right out and be the first on their block to experience the film and make up their own mind.
