NitrateVille.com

Here's a film not often shown, the 1928 Silent about a former General finding work as an extra in the movies.

TCM has it on their prime time schedule for Monday, November 17th', 8 PM (Eastern).

It's Silent films all night long tomorrow (11/17) on TCM. Five more Silents and at least one Jolson musical on Tuesday morning.

Wonderful film!
I have it on the Von Sternberg box set.
Great direction, Jannings is superb, and William Powell in a fantastic supporting role.

Powell played a very different type of character in the silent (especially for those used to him in his later talkies).
Some of his earlier supporting roles were as guys.....well.....not someone you would want to know in real life.
I've seen him in a few from this very late silent period.....as he somewhat goes from bad guy to bad guy with redeeming qualities, then eventually moving into leading man good-guys.

Jannings is the stat, but Powell has a pivotal role that showcases his talent.

A film you shouldn't miss!

Script: (from an Ernst Lubitsch suggestion) John F. Goodrich; Lajos Bíró; Josef von Sternberg; Herman J. Mankiewicz (titles)
Read It......
Buy It

Or half that price?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Last-Comman ... 259698de75" target="_blank

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Last-Comman ... 2c86be479d" target="_blank

Watching it again just now, had forgotten that tired & time-worn organ accompaniment, same as used by TCM about a decade ago; by no means the worst I've heard, but still... Such an acclaimed picture surely deserves better. Wonder if that Korean import offers an orchestral score?

They're not showing the Criterion version? What a disappointment. I guess they can't afford the licensing cost. Makes me almost glad I've got DishTV.

WARNING: Spoiler alert ahead...

Watched it this morning and really enjoyed it. However, maybe I need another cup of coffee, but what prompted William Powell's character to have change of heart at the end of the film calling Emil's character a great man? This from the guy who took a whip to the face and was jailed by that same "great" man. In fact, wasn't Powell's character just trying to humiliate him by making him play in a battle scene right before he died? I'm going to go grab that cup of coffee; I think I need it.

NotSoSilent wrote:WARNING: Spoiler alert ahead...

Watched it this morning and really enjoyed it... but what prompted William Powell's character to have change of heart at the end of the film calling Emil's character a great man? This from the guy who took a whip to the face and was jailed by that same "great" man. In fact, wasn't Powell's character just trying to humiliate him by making him play in a battle scene...

It does seem a contradiction since Powell says earlier that he'd been waiting ten years for another encounter with the General.
It seems like revengeful taunting until Janning's final moments when he asks, "Did we win the battle?"
Perhaps it was the heroic portrayal of himself at the battle that affected Powell's character?
It definitely changes from hatred to respect.

Big Silent Fan wrote:It does seem a contradiction since Powell says earlier that he'd been waiting ten years for another encounter with the General.
It seems like revengeful taunting until Janning's final moments when he asks, "Did we win the battle?"
Perhaps it was the heroic portrayal of himself at the battle that affected Powell's character?
It definitely changes from hatred to respect.

I am glad it wasn't just me; I really thought I had missed something. Nothing happened, that I can recall anyway, that led me to believe Powell viewed him differently until the very end when he dropped the "great man" line. I sat there thinking, "What the hell happened? You HATED him!" But, I guess I learned something valuable. I will now start looking at my adversaries and in a dying voice ask, "Did we win the battle?" That will surely get them on my side.

NotSoSilent wrote:

Big Silent Fan wrote:It does seem a contradiction since Powell says earlier that he'd been waiting ten years for another encounter with the General.
It seems like revengeful taunting until Janning's final moments when he asks, "Did we win the battle?"
Perhaps it was the heroic portrayal of himself at the battle that affected Powell's character?
It definitely changes from hatred to respect.

I am glad it wasn't just me; I really thought I had missed something. Nothing happened, that I can recall anyway, that led me to believe Powell viewed him differently until the very end when he dropped the "great man" line. I sat there thinking, "What the hell happened? You HATED him!" But, I guess I learned something valuable. I will now start looking at my adversaries and in a dying voice ask, "Did we win the battle?" That will surely get them on my side.

The question that takes precedence over this one--if you absolutely insist on logic--is, what was Powell doing in the heartland of capitalism when HIS side won the Revolution? Why wasn't he serving as a Commissar in the People's Republic, rooting out reactionaries, eradicating Kulaks, or otherwise advancing the cause of Socialism?

Or, if you can answer that question, tell me why a train would suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, fall through a bridge? There was no flood or other natural disaster to account for it, & no evidence was provided that it had been sabotaged by counter-revolutionaries; God's Will?

Such irrationalities as these I try to ignore (though with only minimal attention to the narrative they could have been avoided without driving up production costs), but the one it was impossible to ignore was Sternberg's decking out Evelyn Brent in the hottest fashions of 1928. Strains credulity to believe it was a simple oversight. What's particularly irksome to me about it is that it was so utterly unnecessary, as high-fashion in 1918 could be spectacular, leaving Evelyn looking not a whit less glamorous. Yes, many other pictures were guilty of similar anachronisms (to cut costuming costs, no doubt), but they weren't made by artistes.

entredeuxguerres wrote:Or, if you can answer that question, tell me why a train would suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, fall through a bridge? There was no flood or other natural disaster to account for it, & no evidence was provided that it had been sabotaged by counter-revolutionaries; God's Will?

Many of your questions are above my pay grade, so I'll have to pass. I believe, however, I know what happened to the train. Like you, I wondered why a train would suddenly fall through the bridge so I watched the scene again. It looks like the train hit a tower which caused the foundation to collapse. Maybe the train came off the track due to ice? That is what I am choosing to believe.

NotSoSilent wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote:Or, if you can answer that question, tell me why a train would suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, fall through a bridge? There was no flood or other natural disaster to account for it, & no evidence was provided that it had been sabotaged by counter-revolutionaries; God's Will?

Many of your questions are above my pay grade, so I'll have to pass. I believe, however, I know what happened to the train. Like you, I wondered why a train would suddenly fall through the bridge so I watched the scene again. It looks like the train hit a tower which caused the foundation to collapse. Maybe the train came off the track due to ice? That is what I am choosing to believe.

Plausible, but all uncertainty could have been dispelled easily by having someone say to the drunken engineer, "slow down crossing that bridge, the tracks are icy, the foundation is weak," or some similar warning. Considering how many people must have viewed this scene as it was being shot & edited, it's hard to believe this question was never raised.

NotSoSilent wrote:Plausible, but all uncertainty could have been dispelled easily by having someone say to the drunken engineer, "slow down crossing that bridge, the tracks are icy, the foundation is weak," or some similar warning. Considering how many people must have viewed this scene as it was being shot & edited, it's hard to believe this question was never raised.

There were very few people in 1928 who could grab their remote and rewind a scene for further investigation. People were likely more conditioned to watching the finer details in films or they simply chose to "go with it." It's just sometimes easier to comply and "go" with something. My wife reminds me of this principal quite often.

I suppose I'll take a lot of flak for this, but I thought Jannings overacted terribly in the scenes at the movie studio.

William Powell's role as a former revolutionary turned movie director is key to making this movie work. Powell took his part seriously, no joking around. Powell and company are helped by the great art direction in this movie, with loads of costumed extras filling many scenes, whether as soldiers, revolutionaries or extras. Only four years later, Paramount Publix was like Jannings' extra, down on its luck and forced into receivership. While it is good that this movie survives, It is too bad that "The Last Command" only survives as a print with variable image quality. The Criterion print did not appear to me to have much better print quality than the TCM airing.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

NotSoSilent wrote:

Big Silent Fan wrote:It does seem a contradiction since Powell says earlier that he'd been waiting ten years for another encounter with the General.
It seems like revengeful taunting until Janning's final moments when he asks, "Did we win the battle?"
Perhaps it was the heroic portrayal of himself at the battle that affected Powell's character?
It definitely changes from hatred to respect.

I am glad it wasn't just me; I really thought I had missed something. Nothing happened, that I can recall anyway, that led me to believe Powell viewed him differently until the very end when he dropped the "great man" line. I sat there thinking, "What the hell happened? You HATED him!" But, I guess I learned something valuable. I will now start looking at my adversaries and in a dying voice ask, "Did we win the battle?" That will surely get them on my side.

The question that takes precedence over this one--if you absolutely insist on logic--is, what was Powell doing in the heartland of capitalism when HIS side won the Revolution? Why wasn't he serving as a Commissar in the People's Republic, rooting out reactionaries, eradicating Kulaks, or otherwise advancing the cause of Socialism?

Or, if you can answer that question, tell me why a train would suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, fall through a bridge? There was no flood or other natural disaster to account for it, & no evidence was provided that it had been sabotaged by counter-revolutionaries; God's Will?

Such irrationalities as these I try to ignore (though with only minimal attention to the narrative they could have been avoided without driving up production costs), but the one it was impossible to ignore was Sternberg's decking out Evelyn Brent in the hottest fashions of 1928. Strains credulity to believe it was a simple oversight. What's particularly irksome to me about it is that it was so utterly unnecessary, as high-fashion in 1918 could be spectacular, leaving Evelyn looking not a whit less glamorous. Yes, many other pictures were guilty of similar anachronisms (to cut costuming costs, no doubt), but they weren't made by artistes.

Seen it a few times in twenties films set during the war period or thereabouts where fashions are out of whack. I think WINGS is notorious for this and in other respects with incorrect later military hardware and Buddy's beaten up jalopy would have been a new car in the correct war time period.

entredeuxguerres wrote:
The question that takes precedence over this--is, what was Powell doing in the heartland of capitalism when HIS side won the Revolution? Why wasn't he serving as a Commissar in the People's Republic, rooting out reactionaries, eradicating Kulaks, or otherwise advancing the cause of Socialism?

Or, if you can answer that question, tell me why a train would suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, fall through a bridge? There was no flood or other natural disaster to account for it, & no evidence was provided that it had been sabotaged by counter-revolutionaries; God's Will?

Such irrationalities as these I try to ignore...but the one it was impossible to ignore was Sternberg's decking out Evelyn Brent in the hottest fashions of 1928. Strains credulity to believe it was a simple oversight. What's particularly irksome to me about it is that it was so utterly unnecessary, as high-fashion in 1918 could be spectacular, leaving Evelyn looking not a whit less glamorous.

The Russian director's first love was the theatre and his second was probably Evellyn Brent's character, a misguided supporter of the revolution. Now that he'd lost his girlfriend, his enthusiasm was lost as well. Like the many Russian extras, he came to America where there was work

Brent twice saves Janning's life, when she doesn't shoot him and again when she went to such great lengths to allow him to escape from the train. His love for Russia has overcome her revolutionary ideals and she loves him for it.
We see Evellyn so many times in passionate scenes that my heart stopped when I realized this beautiful girl has just plummeted to her death along with so many others. It was the turning point of the story.

Train crashes were a big staple in the Silent film, always sure to grab attention. Wrecks do happen and bridges often collapse without any warning in real life, so how is it hard to imagine the same in a film?

The director's change of heart, typifies someone waiting to get his revenge and when he finally does, the anger is replaced by sympathy. He sees this poor old man whose suffered and is no longer able to function normally and the hatred disappears.

The film doesn't explain it...you have to work it out on your own.

Those who expect logic from the movies are laboring under a misapprehension that we live in a logical world. The film I think does a good job of exposing the absurdity of real life.

Changsham wrote: Seen it a few times in twenties films set during the war period or thereabouts where fashions are out of whack. I think WINGS is notorious for this and in other respects with incorrect later military hardware and Buddy's beaten up jalopy would have been a new car in the correct war time period.

But we wouldn't expect Wild Bill to obsess over hemlines...especially when he's preoccupied with staging the aerial sequences without killing anybody. But Sternberg is supposed to have a reputation for attention to details...certainly undeserved in this case.

Big Silent Fan wrote:The Russian director's first love was the theatre and his second was probably Evellyn Brent's character, a misguided supporter of the revolution. Now that he'd lost his girlfriend, his enthusiasm was lost as well. ...

Well, that was Eisenstein's first love as well, but he never lost HIS enthusiasm for the Party.

Despite some of the flaws pointed out in this thread, I think 'The Last Command' is one of the richest, most dazzling films of the silent era. Why?

First, there's nothing like seeing Emil Jannings go berzerk at the end. But the ending is only the beginning of what I Iike about this picture.

Not only does 'The Last Command' tell a great story, but it uses the then-new medium of motion pictures in a meta sense (it's partly about the making of motion pictures), as a way to examine timeless "big" questions such as: What does it mean to have power over another? And who among us is acting? And who is real?

'The Last Command' explores such issues with exquisite grace, I think. We're not hit on the head with any lesson or moral. But it's all there for us to see, if we look for it.

Also, 'The Last Command' makes great use of the visual nature of silent film. As one example, take what Sternberg has his cast do with cigarettes throughout the film. It's a sustained visual metaphor that helps underscore the changing relationships of power between various characters.

I'm also impressed with how the film used then-current events to create a work of entertainment that touches on big and timeless issues. With the Russian Revolution and silent film both ancient history to us today, it's easy to overlook that. But 'The Last Command' was very much of its time.

I put together a pretty detailed analysis of 'The Last Command' following a screening at Molloy College on Long Island last year. I wouldn't presume to just paste it all in here, but if anyone is interested, it's online at:

http://silentfilmlivemusic.blogspot.com ... nd-at.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

One final thought: It's great 'The Last Command' shows up on TV now and then. But I would urge you to take any chance you can get to see this film in a theater with live music and an audience. If it all happens to click, it's one of the great shared experiences of cinema!

Can't recall noticing all those inconsistencies, though think was aware of a handful. Being a silent, there is no need to rewind for uncaught dialogue, so I do this very sparingly. As with NotSoSilent, I agree the thing is to 'go with the flow' and bear in mind it is melodrama and entertainment rather than reality and works very well on both counts. There is a copy on YT, but it looks a trifle washed-out and it is available for purchase at a not to horrendous price.

And re 'Wild Bill' Wellman, I only recently found out his middle name was Augustus! He certainly kept that one a bit quiet...

Preston Sturges is on record somehere- I don't have access to my books right now- that The Last Command was the most perfect film he ever saw. In the trajectory of a character's sudden changes of fortune, there is some similarity to Sturges' later scripts.

Jeff Rapsis wrote:Despite some of the flaws pointed out in this thread, I think 'The Last Command' is one of the richest, most dazzling films of the silent era.

I don't know if I would qualify everything pointed out as a "flaw" - at least from my point of view. The film led to a discussion; it started a dialogue, which great films tend to do. I was thrown by Powell's change of heart at the end of the film, but some concepts presented here caused me to see things a bit differently. Great films lead to great discussion. In that spirit, I have many questions about the new Dumb and Dumber film, but maybe I should start a new thread for those.

I disagree with the the negative comments about Powell's last line describing the general: "He was more than a great actor - he was a great man." Remember Arthur Kennedy's character describing Kirk Douglas' character in the movie "Champion," saying he was a champion who behaved like a champ and was an honor for boxing until the end. Don't speak ill of the dead. After Powell's character, director Leo Andreyev, makes his last judgment of General Alexander, he lays the Russian flag on the general turned Hollywood extra. Powell's character is providing a class end to a classic Hollywood movie.

entredeuxguerres wrote:Watching it again just now, had forgotten that tired & time-worn organ accompaniment, same as used by TCM about a decade ago; by no means the worst I've heard, but still... Such an acclaimed picture surely deserves better. Wonder if that Korean import offers an orchestral score?

Chances are they straight jack moved the Criterion edition.

Update:. The Korean import is a direct Criterion rip.

I have the Eureka blu-ray of the film, and it is lovely to look at. It has the Gaylord Carter organ score. Is this the same master and score as Criterion used?

C.

Claus Harding wrote:I have the Eureka blu-ray of the film, and it is lovely to look at. It has the Gaylord Carter organ score. Is this the same master and score as Criterion used?

C.

I haven't double-checked, but this review says the Criterion DVD has two audio tracks:
1. Robert Israel
2. Alloy Orchestra

http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-revie ... ection/724" target="_blank

Rick

I talk about the various tracks a bit in these reviews.