MOVIEmeter
SEE RANK
Down 105,895 this week

Thomas Graal's Best Child (1918)
"Thomas Graals bästa barn" (original title)

6.6
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 6.6/10 from 45 users  
Reviews: 3 user

Add a Plot

Director:

Writer:

0Check in
0Share...

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 302 titles
created 01 Jan 2011
 
a list of 5 titles
created 26 Aug 2012
 
a list of 126 titles
created 13 Aug 2013
 
list image
a list of 9883 titles
created 29 Oct 2013
 
a list of 6727 titles
created 11 months ago
 

Related Items

Connect with IMDb


Share this Rating

Title: Thomas Graal's Best Child (1918)

Thomas Graal's Best Child (1918) on IMDb 6.6/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of Thomas Graal's Best Child.
Edit

Cast

Credited cast:
...
Karin Molander ...
Bessie
Josef Fischer ...
Alexander Douglas
Jenny Tschernichin-Larsson ...
Clotilde Douglas
Axel Nilsson ...
John
Rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Edvin Adolphson ...
Guest
Walerie Alexandrow-Höök ...
Bridesmaid
Carl Apolloff ...
Guest
Hugo Björne ...
Wedding Guest
Gucken Cederborg ...
Woman Cook
Kotti Chave ...
Page
Gösta Gustafson ...
Student
Paul Hagman
Wictor Hagman ...
Wedding Guest
Julius Hälsig ...
Guest
Edit

Storyline

Add Full Plot | Add Synopsis

Genres:

Comedy

Certificate:

See all certifications »
Edit

Details

Country:

|

Release Date:

21 October 1918 (Sweden)  »

Also Known As:

Marriage a la Mode  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

| (original release)

Sound Mix:

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Connections

Featured in Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood (1995) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
One of the few great film sequels.
28 May 2001 | by (dublin, ireland) – See all my reviews

This delightful sequel to 'Thomas Graal's Best Film' seems like an absolute retraction of its predecessor's subversiveness. Where that film presented us with a heroine who ran away from home when she disagreed with her aristocratic parents, and humiliated them in the name of independence; who crossed class-barriers to work as a secretary; who did not immediately yield to a persistent lover, only giving in on her terms; here we have a woman solely defined by her home and by her role as wife and mother. Her strict aspirations for her child are made mockery of, and her adaption of an Isadora Duncan-style feminism is deemed unfeminine; she is encouraged to return to her chic, elegant, coquettish ways that are specifically infantilised.

In the first film, Graal's masculine power could only be expressed in the fantasy of his screenplay; here, his short story reveals to his wife the errors of her ways. The one narrative disruption - Graal trying to remember where he put the ring on his wedding day, he points the congregation in another direction so he can search unobserved - restores order, although it does result in a very funny set-piece.

It is easy to caricature the comedies of Stiller as mere predecessors of Lubitsch, but there is a similarity in the way both directors treat sex and the battle of the sexes as a game. The second sequence, in which husband and wife declare war because one wants a daughter and the other a son, is framed as a game, with the house a symmetrical playing board with its defining spaces from which the characters fire their volleys.

Although the argument is supposed to be about offspring (something, obviously, neither can help), it is really about frustrated consummation - when the row begins in the carriage, Bessie won't let Graal finger her posie of roses, while he destroys his hat on an immobile phallic statue in his study. It's only the threat of an outsider (a wonderfully barmy scene involving a drunken Count and poet, given a marvellously surreal entrance, stumbling down a huge flight of steps), and the spilling of a private difficulty, into a public spectacle (including the hurling of coins to the peasants in the merde-strewn streets), that decides the issue - and it is Bessie who decides it.

This sex-game motif is returned to for the climax, when Bessie seems to give in to Graal's sexist demands for femininity - she seems to give in, but she is literally playing a role, putting on a set of clothes that confer a certain identity; in the game that follows, she is in control, and once again this is figured in the house, where Bessie's sexual power is revealed in her controlling the key to her room. Her power is sophisticated and intellectual, Graal's is rather bestial, sublimated in a brutal hunting expedition with a long, loaded rifle liable to shoot off anywhere (having previously revealed himself a Bunuellian fetishist, sniffing his wife's shoes).

After all, if Bessie is infantilised at the end, than Graal has been on this level all along, not only in the relationship he has with his kid (an adorable sequence in one of the few convincing films about a baby: to amuse his kid, Graal puts a bin over their dog, to adorable effect), but in the bachelor shambles from which he emerges at the beginning, in contrast to his bride's prepared control, significantly surrounded by children.

There is a sophisticated use of mirrors in the film, not only in mirroring scenes, but in visually expressing the division inherent in these characters; for example, between what they want and what their partners want them to be. When Bessie, having been described as unfeminine, notes this division by looking in a mirror, the shot could be misogynistic, or it could be a recognition that the only way to negotiate rigid situations is to adopt various roles.

Another threat to the apparent conservatism, besides the still ironic and deflating narrator (as well as Graal's winks to camera), is the way the film is put together. It seems less a coherent narrative, than at least four different films put together - the farce of the wedding; the sex-war over the child; the domestic comedy over rearing the child; and the final comedy of identities. These four sections are obviously connected by the characters in them, but the characters themselves don't have the same attitudes or motivations in each one. This isn't poor scripting, but a recognition that people in their daily lives aren't consistent, coherent characters, but a series of different, often contradictory selves, which will always disrupt repressive attempts at uniformity.


3 of 3 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Discuss Thomas Graal's Best Child (1918) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?