I don't think there was another director in silent Hollywood whose style was so immediately recognizable as von Stroheim's; the novelistic wealth of narrative detail, the grotesque elements around the edges of the diegesis complicating the simplistic wish-fulfilment/escapism that more straightforward entertainers aimed for, the associative-editing choices based on an idiosyncratic sense of what might be interesting or important at any give time... Erich von S and no-one else.
@demagogo Calling it dull does not make you stupid - it's called an opinion, but what does make you stupid is telling others what they should think about a film or to avoid it completely based on your own conceit.
with all that religious imagery shining around him, you'd think Karamzin would stop being a horny scumbag. but he doesn't. so he ends up exactly where he belongs.
This was another I'm adding to my favorites. The pacing and plot pulled me right in, and I loved Sergius. It probably helps that I've got a major crush on von Stroheim.
For me, it's really hard to ponder pieces like this, or some other acclaimed silents, as masterpieces. The piano is insufferable, I just can't imagine how I would go along straight with that for the 6 hours or so the original should last. The plot is your classical post-WWI decadent aristocrats, morally outraging for 1920's conservatives, but fairly innocuous at the end of the day. There's nothing intriguing, nothing slightly profound if you clear your head from film-snobbery, and take a bit of fresh air. Avoid it, don't search for things there aren't.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 12 of 12
MrW
I don't think there was another director in silent Hollywood whose style was so immediately recognizable as von Stroheim's; the novelistic wealth of narrative detail, the grotesque elements around the edges of the diegesis complicating the simplistic wish-fulfilment/escapism that more straightforward entertainers aimed for, the associative-editing choices based on an idiosyncratic sense of what might be interesting or important at any give time... Erich von S and no-one else.nbats
https://youtu.be/gefsodPvG04auvajs
Von Stroheim was undoubtedly one of the most interesting personas of the silent film. But, of course, Greed is way much better.justwannaboogie
@demagogo Calling it dull does not make you stupid - it's called an opinion, but what does make you stupid is telling others what they should think about a film or to avoid it completely based on your own conceit.Armoreska
The original was over 6 hours long. Tis only a stump that remainsClassicLady
Watched it on archive.org at 220 minutes.https://archive.org/details/ErichVonStroheimsFoolishWives1922
Knaldskalle
http://www.archive.org/details/ErichVonStroheimsFoolishWives1922ucuruju
with all that religious imagery shining around him, you'd think Karamzin would stop being a horny scumbag. but he doesn't. so he ends up exactly where he belongs.spacew0man
This was another I'm adding to my favorites. The pacing and plot pulled me right in, and I loved Sergius. It probably helps that I've got a major crush on von Stroheim.St. Gloede
Wonderful film. Highly recommended!Fitz of Fury
The archive link is still good with about 141 of 384 minutes. Granted that may be all that currently exists of this film.demagogo
Am I stupid if I say the movie was kinda dull?For me, it's really hard to ponder pieces like this, or some other acclaimed silents, as masterpieces. The piano is insufferable, I just can't imagine how I would go along straight with that for the 6 hours or so the original should last. The plot is your classical post-WWI decadent aristocrats, morally outraging for 1920's conservatives, but fairly innocuous at the end of the day. There's nothing intriguing, nothing slightly profound if you clear your head from film-snobbery, and take a bit of fresh air. Avoid it, don't search for things there aren't.