So I just finished watching the German expressionist silent horror film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
It is the story narrated by a man about his friend and their mutual love, Jane, and their lives in a small German town. One day, the mysterious Dr. Caligari arrives and presents his “somnambulist”, Cesare, (a sleepwalker) at the town fair. Strange murders start occurring and soon the townsfolk become suspicious of this Dr. Caligari and Cesare.
As a fan of artsy, weird movies I have to say this movie was very very cool. The bizzare, angled, dark sets helped to build up an eerie atmosphere of impending doom. The town looks very cold and uninviting. The way the camera zooms in on certain elements, the characters’ manerisms…I could easily see how this would’ve been a terrifying movie back in the 20s. The storyline is excellent; the end featurs a cool plot twist that I never saw coming. It left plenty open for interpretation (which I love!).
So if anyone else here is a fan of weird, dark, artsy movies (or just really good horror stories) I highly recommend this movie!
Yeah, Caligari is one of the great German Expressionist films. There’s a Red Hot Chili Peppers video in which they use a lot of the same image-types (I’m forgetting the name of the song, though). Really good, freaky stuff.
It’s also interesting looking at the different careers of two of the stars. Conrad Veidt, who played Cesare, when Hitler came to power, fled to the US and got typecast playing Nazis, most notably in Casablanca.
On the other hand, Werner Krause, who played Dr. Caligari, stayed in Germany and made Nazi and anti-Semetic propaganda.
I’ve read that Veidt actually enjoyed being typecast as a Nazi. He wasn’t Jewish himself, but his wife was, and they fled Germany when Hitler came to power. Veidt apparently revelled in making the Nazis look bad, so he actually enjoyed playing despicable Nazis.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari still holds up after all these years, and is definitely a must see for anyone even the slightest bit interested in film history.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is one of the earliest features you can watch today for which you don’t have to make allowances for it as a historical artifact. It stands up quite well on its own. The scene in which Cesare “awakens” for the audience is still marvellously eerie.
Francis finds out that Dr. Caligari is the respected director of an asylum, and tells the police about the crimes, who then arrest the doctor
However, the authorities forced them to
Put the whole movie in a “frame”, by adding a scene at the beginning, where Francis is sitting in a park telling his story to someone, and then a scene at the end, where we find out that he was telling it to Jane. Then Dr. Caligari and Cesare walk down the path, and Francis jumps up and confronts them, accusing Caligari of murder. Orderlies then grab him and put him in a straitjacket, and we realize that the “park” is really the grounds of the asylum, and Francis is a resident there.
The American remake was The Cabinet Of Caligari . It lacks any of the expressionist sets, costumes, etc of the original.
However, the 1989 film Dr Caligari is faithful to the spirit of the German original. Without spoiling anything- The house set has no walls. It is represented by furniture and a huge, stand-alone keyhole. The characters often strike bizarre, stylized poses reminscent of kabuki.
The first scene of the film has sound effects and music, but no speech.
Despite what some reviews say, this is not a pornographic film.
After I first saw Dr Caligari, I couldn't decide whether it was a hideous piece of garbage or one of the most brilliant movies I'd ever seen. I finally decided on the latter.
What makes “The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari” stand out are the backdrops and sets. In an era of nascent and extremely limited special effects, the tilted buildings and canted floors all lent a warped perspective to the film’s abberant characters. Cross fades and vignetting are about all of the film effects used in production. At that time, George Melies was one of the few people experimenting with false perspective and superimposition.
Another, not-to-be-missed early German work is “Nosferatu.” Bela Lugosi comes across like a schoolboy compared to this Teutonic wampire. The antagonist is truly terrifying and acts the part of a reanimated corpse to perfection.
Trigonal Planar, I respectfully could not disagree with you more. I’ve always hated the “altered” ending and considered it a terrible cop-out. The most bothersome facet is that the expressionist set supposedly reflects the distortions of Francis’ diseased mind; but that distortion is still present in the “real” world, i.e, outside the framing device.
I don’t think the altered ending is a cop-out, because
The audience cannot be sure that Francis’s story is not more or less true. Even if Francis is genuinely insane (and this is not clear) Dr. Caligari could still be a murderer who used his position and influence to escape punishment and have Francis committed. The distorted set would be reflective not of Francis’s twisted mind, but the twisted society he lives in. This is a much darker ending than the original, which ends with the villain being brought to justice.
This interepretation of the alternate ending has always seemed so obvious to me that I’m surprised it was not rejected as being worse than the original. The original ending was rejected as being too critical of authority (in the form of Dr. Caligari), but if Dr. Caligari is using his position to evade the law and have those who try to stop him committed then the criticism of corrupt authority is all the stronger than if he is arrested by other authority figures (the police). I’d think it was a huge cop-out if the altered ending made it clear that Francis was truly delusional and Dr. Caligari was just a nice old psychiatrist who never did anyone harm, but I don’t think it does (or was even sincerely intended to do) that at all.
When it played recently on one of the movie channels, the host said that the filmmakers did not have the lighting equipment they wanted to produce shadows, etc. With only one bright light (or set of lights, I can’t remember) they decided they would have to paint the sets in order to get the proper shadows. So from necessity, a classic was born.
As for Conrad Veidt, his role here and in “Casablanca” makes him someone who appeared in a truly classic movie in both the silent and sound eras. Plus if you count the 1940 version of “The Thief of Baghdad” (which I haven’t seen) his hits include the silent era, talkies, and Technicolor.
Oh, I guess I should make it clear that it was the original German version I watched; obviously with replaced English title cards though. Specifically, it was the Kino release DVD.
Don’t Mind Me
Lamia did a much better job of explaining it than I could. Deffinitely the altered ending is (IMO) a much darker version. The original ending is far simpler, with the bad guy being brought to justice. It seems to me the altered version would have been the one to cause greater distress from the censors.
Lamia, Trigonal Planar, you both make an excellent case. I remember arguing about this in college, and no one came up with as sophisticated a reading of the ending as you two have. It really makes me want to see the film again (it’s been decades). Thanks!
Myth. I’m surprised that it was repeated by one of the movie channel hosts. They usually have better research than that. The set designer in fact was hired because he had done similar expressionistic sets for the theater.