Erich von Stroheim’s third feature, the most expensive film made at that time, cost more than $1 million, this restored 142-minute version makes most of the surviving film footage to present its entirety, still elisions are evident, especially relative to the downfall to the protagonist “Count” Sergius Karamzin (von Stroheim), an imposter of aristocrats with his two accessories-and-kissing-cousins, “Princess” Vera and Olga Petchnikoff (Busch and George), the final blow is omitted.
Renting a cliffside castle in Monte Carlo (a magnificent replica built in the Hollywood studio) and tucking in caviar for breakfast, Sergius and co. must earn extra lucre to maintain their opulent existence besides the usual business with the banknote counterfeiter Cesare Ventucci (Gravina), who, inexplicably, still lives in the sleazy environs with his dim-witted but nubile daughter Marietta (Polo). When a US envoy arrives to meet Albert I, Prince of Morocco, Sergius finds his next quarry in the person of Helen Hughes (DuPont), the 21-year-old wife of Andrew Hughes (Christians, in his last picture), the said envoy.
This reviewer hopes he is not the only one who finds Sergius’ chaining-smoking, monocle-sporting, continental noble mannerism appallingly off-putting, but as beauty is in the eyes of its beholder, Ms. Hughes, derisively denoted as an unsophisticated, incredulous, cocooned American wife, embraces Sergius’ guise wholesomely, much to the chagrin of her husband, and precariously puts her own reputation on the line during a stormy night when she goes out with Sergius alone, saved by the fortuitous appearance of a passing-by monk (De Brulier), yet the unmitigated grubbiness of Sergiusnever relents, he soon easily ropes naive maid Maruschka (a woebegone Fuller) into giving up her petty savings on a false promise of matrimony, and simultaneously sows the seed of his undoing, which catches up with him after successfully extracting money from Ms. Hughes out of her own volition.
It smells like a vanity project, but von Stroheim at least manages to transmute his production excesses into something of a spectacle, not least for its money shots of a turret engulfed by fire and the actors’ desperate derring-do of jumping onto a spring mattress. Although the attendant metallic store by András Hamary of this restored version may not cleave closely to the emotional ups-and-downs of the narrative, von Stroheim’s FOOLISH WIVES, for what it is worth in its pieced-together form, like the meta-novel Mr. Hughes reads, cunningly reflects a satirical sting out of its full-fledged enterprise of a cautionary tale.
referential entries: Billy Wilder’s SUNSET BLVD. (1950, 9.0/10); F.W. Murnau’s FINANCES OF THE GRAND DUKE (1924, 6.3/10), SUNSET, A SONG OF TWO HUMANS (1927, 9.0/10).
第一次看默片看的那么投入...
3.5星,可以想象如果沒有被弄的支離破碎殘缺不全這一定是一部偉大的電影,現(xiàn)存的這個版本對后半部分的影響尤其的嚴重。施特羅海姆稱這是有史以來第一部“百萬電影”,拍攝成本超過了100萬美元。評論則認為這是施特羅海姆導(dǎo)演生涯中排在第三的佳片。三條線如今只能夠清晰的看到一條線,也就是和大使夫人的一條線,和女仆以及少女的線都有點不太清晰但其實這也無妨可是在后半段失去了很多關(guān)鍵情節(jié)就有點讓人莫名了。相比雷雨和著火的橋段其實還是更喜歡一開始男主角與大使夫人初遇的那個橋段,這一部分情緒的微妙變化拍的格外細膩。其他小的細節(jié)尤其是兩個女騙子都被抓掉了假發(fā)套,也可算是巧妙的黑色幽默。結(jié)尾被扔進了下水道不但冷酷而且極其自黑。。。
雖然是默片,劇情還是很狗血的,性虐騙子覆滅記。
日落大道三十年前的Erich von Stroheim導(dǎo)/演功力領(lǐng)教了。他的極繁主義首先是為故事服務(wù)的,排場第二,所以奢華但又細膩敏銳,很有味道的默期大片,幕后軼聞也比比皆是,真是傳奇人物。
默片似乎都限制了施特羅海姆的發(fā)揮,這次是對女性迷戀男性外表的批評,片中女主角兩次遇到同一個軍官做了絕妙的隱射
施特羅海姆演的角色怎么都是大奸大惡之人呢 自己當導(dǎo)演咋還不給自己安排點好角色
對于這種貴族題材電影毫無感覺,好在制作和攝影都無可挑剔,敘事到也不算太冗長,配樂重復(fù)來重復(fù)去,單調(diào)得令人發(fā)指。
太可惜了,可以明顯看出刪減造成的不對稱,140分鐘的最新添加版本更讓人好奇完整版本是怎樣的宏偉,幾條線中與美國大使夫人的線非常豐富,但其他兩條線就很簡略了,但即使這樣也不妨礙施特羅海姆史詩敘事的強大技能,一戰(zhàn)過后對歐洲所謂貴族精神墮落毫不留情地批判,他們用虛妄的金錢和逢場作戲來維持虛幻的尊嚴,殊不知自己進入到道德的陷阱中,女人用了慘痛的代價終于看到了伯爵的真面孔,曾經(jīng)的真卻變?yōu)榱思?,這個世界遠不是你所看到的那個樣子,布景太厲害了,完全以假亂真,最后那場大火的群戲調(diào)度更是嘆為觀止,當然最終的悲劇是伯爵的宿命,這位花花公子和財迷終于找到了他最好的歸宿,被上流社會拋棄后貧民窟的幽暗下水道
8.3/10。①男主冒充伯爵勾搭上數(shù)個女人(美國外交官的妻子A、女仆、少女)并對她們實行性虐待+騙錢,最終他因此被人殺死。②幾段大場面的調(diào)度水平很高;許多布景為達到最大的擬真效果花了海量金錢與精力;攝影水平很高(有的地方甚至把夜晚打成了白天);表演模式比起當時其他默片相對自然主義(符合寫實的影調(diào));暴風雨劃船那段和賭場大火那段處理(剪輯調(diào)度美術(shù)等)地非常好。③作為傳統(tǒng)故事片三條敘事線除了男主與A的線外另兩條都或多或少不完整,這種不完整還導(dǎo)致敘事節(jié)奏較拖,加起來扣1.5。
漂亮朋友覆滅記
111 min / 35 mm / INT. FR. Ciné-concert de Sheep Got Waxed
跟Blind Husbands真的不是姊妹篇嗎?甚至連片名都是對偶的
【油管140分鐘 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mmNCCp_IbA】情人節(jié),看個大片,里面有一對俄國獵狼犬,好像除了俄版《戰(zhàn)爭與和平》,我還沒在哪部電影中看見它們這么多鏡頭
寫實主義。導(dǎo)演對于畫面里人物行為的精準捕捉與超脫時代的環(huán)境寫實確實讓人眼前一亮,也是很罕見地把臺詞卡當做“聲音”運作而不是第二“畫面”的默片導(dǎo)演,可惜太殘了。
沒人覺得姜文其實長得蠻像這時候的Stroheim的?情節(jié)看似狗血,但主人公保持自我到最后一秒這點,和后三十年的好萊塢比特別難得。
齊人有一妻一妾?去死的軍官和紳士,你他媽 根本就不是男人,非常的寫實主義加細膩手法,最后的結(jié)尾非常偉大,影片有一種放縱的虛無意味
沖動必須是赤裸的。只認為沖動會滿足于一個環(huán)境給它提供或保留的東西是絕對不夠的。這種滿足不是一種安命,而是一種巨大愉悅,沖動從中發(fā)現(xiàn)了自己選擇的力量,因為從深刻意義上看,它是改變環(huán)境、尋找新的環(huán)境開發(fā)、分割的欲望,因而它會滿足這個環(huán)境提供的哪怕是最低級的、最令人厭惡的、最令人惡心的東西。沖動的愉悅不能用情愫來衡量,即不能用可能對象的內(nèi)質(zhì)來衡量。//吉爾·德勒茲.電影1:運動-影像.[M].p207
可能已經(jīng)看了另一部,我只想說...導(dǎo)演,你咋就這么愛這種劇情了,還都是親自扮演里面花花公子的角色,而且那套服飾基本一樣啊....然后,我本人更喜歡另一部。
人物刻畫,大片。批判。
片中暴風雨后的夜戲在當時能有如此處理,難得。80分