Reviews & Ratings for
Michael More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

17 reviews in total

---

30 out of 37 people found the following review useful:
Have we changed so little?, 16 May 2004

Author: Havan_IronOak from NYC/FL

I invite any who see this to compare it to Novios búlgaros, Los (2003).

The stories are remarkably similar. An older man is attracted to a younger and the younger (while primarily attracted to women) is willing to be the object of adoration provided that it pays well.

In this film the older painter is taken at every opportunity by his younger model (and ward). And somehow the younger man is not painted as being a complete villain.

Also of interest to me was a minor subplot, when the famous artist is attempting to paint a princess who has commissioned a portrait the artist struggles more than he has with any other painting (The earlier paintings that we see are all of men) In this one he simply cannot get the eyes right. His young model/ward (who first came to him as an aspiring painter) makes an attempt and gets it right at his first go. Perhaps what was symbolized here was that the eyes are the windows to the soul and the famous painter (who's only attracted to men) cannot see into the souls of women while his young ward (who has slept with the woman at this point) can do so easily.

This film was remarkably well made for its day and while it does show some creaky signs of age, it is much more modern appearing than many of the films that came out of Hollywood much later.

The movie was fascinating even with no sound (which made a Swan Lake ballet sequence seem a bit weird) and the subtitles in the print I saw were in Danish (English translations were handed out before the show but did little good in a darkened theatre).

If you want to see fully one half of all gay themed films released in the 20's in one go, this may be your ticket. BTW... the other gay themed film made in the 20's Flesh and the Devil (1926) has much less gay oriented theme and is also available on VHS

---

22 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Unjustly unknown, 21 November 2005

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

Silent drama about gay painter Claude Zoret (Benjamin Christensen) and his model/lover Mikael (Walter Slezak). A beautiful countess (Nora Gregor) commissions Zoret to paint her. He does but Mikael starts to fall in love with her. He drifts farther apart from Zoret and their relationship begins to crumble...

Being a gay man and a film addict I was surprised I had never heard of this film! It just popped up unannounced on TCM and I'm glad I taped it. A 1924 film dealing with gay men was way ahead of its time. Their relationship is not made explicit--it's mostly communicated by looks, gestures, dialogue and (in one instance) hand holding. Still that was groundbreaking for that day. It does have the predictable tragic ending...but that was the way it would have to end. It was refreshing to see that their relationship was portrayed as no big deal and no one makes a fuss over it. Very well done.

The acting is just great. It's astonishing to see Slezak so young and handsome and THIN. Christensen was just great too. Gregor isn't that good--but she's not given much to work with. Also this was beautifully directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer. The version I saw also had a very good music score given to in by Kino International in 2004.

A very good, groundbreaking movie. It really deserves a wider audience. I give it an 8 because it IS a little slow at times.

---

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Art, Beauty, Drama, 6 November 2005

Author: Cineanalyst

This is a beautiful film, in its rich mise-en-scène and gorgeous cinematography. It resembles in polished photography, including how well it has remained over the years, the better-looking Hollywood films at the end of the silent era. The lighting is great, creating a very clear and crisp picture, with many subtle effects. And, the interior furnishings are lush.

"Michael" is a moving film, and I think that has more to do with the photography and settings than with the drama. The implicit homosexual relationship between the artist and his model, Michael, is curious, though. What I especially like about the narrative, however, is that it's about art--a very apt subject, which is heightened by the photography. Benjamin Christensen plays the aging artist, which is a significant casting decision, given that he was the great Danish filmmaker to precede Dreyer. Christensen had worked as an actor in his own films, so he's fully capable in this role. Additionally, cinematographer Karl Freund, who changed the role of the camera the same year in "The Last Laugh", has a small role as an art dealer.

Overall, Dreyer does better here with the actors than he previously had. He achieves a nice pacing, as well, except for a few mistimed editing cues, which are too quick. Even the subplot, for mood affect, works. It's a mature work--probably his first--resembling his later films in many ways.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Cinematic homoeroticism of the twenties, 6 October 2007

Author: stalker vogler from Xanadu

Having already seen other movies by Dreyer and acquiring the taste for slow camera and subtle story-telling I gave a try to his 1924 movie Michael. The story is a very simple one and you can find it dealt with in a more engaging manner in Oscar Wilde's book The Picture of Dorian Gray that appeared four decades before the movie. The similarity between the book and the movie comes from the fact that they both explore themes related to homosexuality and homoeroticism, that is the representation of desire between persons of the same sex. Though the story is never shocking, the allusions are quite daring for the time. Wilde's book was censored decades before and its author had a great deal of trouble with law-suits connected to the subject of his book. Michael is more restrained, preferring to deal with the subject in a very quiet manner. The relation between the painter and his "male muse" is represented by a certain intensity in the gaze and by hand holding. The dramatic character is the painter, a wonderful performance by the actor Benjamin Christensen, who is dependent on the younger Michael both sentimentally and professionally. He is confronted with the fact that Michael has feelings for a woman, implicitly rejecting him and causing him a great deal of suffering, from which his death will eventually occur. The movie is packed with very subtle allusions to past dramas and their representation in painting, such as the myth of Ganymede. There is also a moment when Michael shows his lover some figurines representing Chaplin, who was the hero of the silent movie in that age.

The movie encounters some problems related to the editing, the cuts are at times too abrupt, but the cinematography and the sets are too good not to see this movie. It may not be as rewarding as Dreyer's later efforts but it is still better than most of the Hollywood stuff from the same period. Here is a director that was aiming at art from the very beginning!

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Walter Slezak In His Salad Days, 20 April 2008

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

It is sometimes fascinating the subject matter for films before the infamous Code was put in Hollywood. Of course this is a German silent film and in those days when movies didn't talk all one had to do was change the subtitles and film was really universal. Such is the case with Michael, a romantic triangle the apex of which was Walter Slezak in his salad days. He was beloved by both an aristocratic artist and one carnal princess.

In less than a decade when the Nazis took over and made the UFA Studio their personal propaganda reserve such homoerotic work like Michael would not see the light of day for years. I'm really surprised that a print existed and that TCM obtained one. I would have thought Josef Goebbels would have burned all he could find.

Without a kiss, without an embrace, but with a look of love that tells all, we know exactly what the relationship Benjamin Christiansen has with Slezak. Slezak plays the title role, a callow youth a willing user of the affections of all in the same manner Murray Head was in Sunday Bloody Sunday. Slezak was quite the hunk in his youth to those of us who remember him from Hollywood in the Forties.

Nora Gregor plays the princess who eyes Slezak like a side of beef on the meat rack at the Playgirl Club. He's getting tired of Christiansen anyway so he's hot to trot as his she.

Christiansen is a sad and lonely old man and his performance really drives the film. His and Slezak's relationship also reminds me a bit of the famous relationship played out in the tabloids of Scott Thorson and Liberace. Another young cutie who was showered with everything, but just wanted his own space.

It's a good thing this gay themed story did survive and is available now for home viewing on DVD. A great piece of gay cinematic history.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
An A-list collaboration and in many ways, a milestone in adult cinema., 21 April 2008

Author: capkronos (capkronos00@hotmail.com) from Ohio, USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Strange as it may seem, as a huge horror movie fan I couldn't pass up watching this silent drama, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with horror. For starters, it was directed by Carl Th. Dreyer, who is possibly most famous for THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) but also made the genre classics VAMPYR (1932) and VREDENS DAG (1943). Even though this was filmed in Germany during a time of heavy government control of film output, Dreyer managed to secure full artistic control over this particular production. It stars Benjamin Christensen, who directed HAXAN (1921), one of the strangest and most bizarre and most innovative of all horror movies, silent era or not. The interiors were shot by Karl Freund, who later directed the horror classics THE MUMMY (1932) and MAD LOVE (1935) at Universal and would win two Oscars during his long and distinguished career. Freud also makes his first and only on-screen appearance here, playing an art dealer in a single scene. Exteriors were shot by Rudolph Maté, a five-time Oscar nominee who also directed the science fiction classic WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE in 1951. The basis for the film was Herman Bang's novel "Mikaël," which was adapted by the director and Thea von Harbou; the latter being well known for her collaborations with then-husband Fritz Lang. Her writing credits include METROPOLIS (1927), M (1931) and a whole series of "Dr. Mabuse" films. So from top to bottom, a bunch of very talented and influential filmmakers and production people worked on this particular film. The line-up of talent itself should appeal to a wide range of classic film fans and not just horror buffs like myself. The content also secures this film an audience, even today, as it's one of the first films to ever deal with homosexuality in a mature way. In fact, I really can't recall a film made prior to this one to include such content. For 1924, it must have been a very bold and courageous project for these people to take on.

The main character in MICHAEL isn't really Michael himself, but an established, older artist by the name of Claude Zulot (played very well by Christensen). Over the years, Claude has become a wealthy and acclaimed painter specializing in human portraits. When approached by the youthful, almost angelic-looking artist Michael (Walter Slezak), Claude tells him his own sketches need some work but he'll let him become his "muse" and model. Five years later the men are still working - and living - together, but their relationship crumbles once an attractive destitute countess (Nora Gregor) stumbles onto the scene. Michael starts seeing more of her and less of Claude, at first behind Claude's back but eventually with little regard for his feelings. Before long, Michael abandons his mentor for the countess and moves out of the home, but continues to pop in from time to time to see Claude. Those visits usually end in Michael needing financial assistance, whether it be willingly offered to him or stolen. Though the relationship between the men is played off as an "adopted son" type thing to the public, it's obvious there's much more going on beneath the surface. This is evidenced by scenes of Claude's loneliness and agony over his abandonment, the sense of betrayal, a scene where the countess discovers a love letter and many other subtle moments. Adding another dimension to the story is the presence of a journalist named Charles (Robert Garrison), whose unwavering care and support for Claude hints at the kind of unrequited romantic love Claude unwisely tried to find with Michael. The people who truly care for and love you will be willing to put up with your hangups. The people who truly care for and love you will be with you at the end.

Interestingly, on the sidelines, there's a contrasted love triangle between a man, his wife and a young duke she's having an affair with, almost as if to say, "Hey, we ALL have the same feelings, the same relationship problems and go through the same exact things whether we're male or female, gay or straight." Seems simple enough, but it took a lot of courage to put this message on the screen back in 1924. Unfortunately, the whole moral crusade and censorship took hold soon after this was made in much of the world and gay characters weren't tolerated in mainstream cinema unless they were comically exaggerated or hidden behind so much metaphor and subtext you'd need a decoder to spot them. While the content here is subtle by conventional standards, the movie does not shy away from it. Homosexuality is portrayed through adoring looks, touching (the hair, the shoulders, the arms) and holding hands, as well as through emotional reactions to the various events going on. The movie is extremely well made for its time, both in technical terms and in terms of content. The acting from the principals is very, very good and the insight into relationships are relatable to basically anyone who has ever been in one.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Something for the Boys, 19 November 2011
Author: Edgar Soberón Torchia (estorchia@gmail.com) from Panama

Of the Carl Theodor Dreyer motion pictures that I have recently seen, the more mature and the one that shows a better knowledge of the film medium, is "Michael" a production financed and shot in Germany, after he made "Love One Another". The obvious mistakes are more related to editing than to "mise en caméra", and even that is not abundant. Dreyer stylishly uses space, light, and the depth and height of the decors, abstaining from the Expressionist frenzy that characterized a good part of German cinema after "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920). Based on the novel "Mikaël", by Herman Bang, this is one of the most impressive studies of narcissism among the films that I have seen, and one of the most moving dramas on homosexuality in old age that I know. I find admirable is that a film from 1924 shows an understanding of human nature similar to a drama as "Happy Together", rather than recent bursts of sweat and semen that have pretended to explain narcissistic delight and homosexual love in epidermic, explicit ways. We should also remember that this is a motion picture from 1924 if it may illustrate ideas that today may seem as prejudice, or whenever we react negatively to the resources of 1920s cinema, in make-up, costumes, acting style, or technical shortcomings yet to be perfected to erase the efforts to convey an impression of reality. Less problematic, I believe, are the direction and especially the writing. Behind the adaptation there is a key name in the history of cinema: Fritz Lang's ex-wife, Thea Von Harbou, who remained in Germany when her husband fled from the Nazis. By 1924 Harbou and Lang had already collaborated in "The Weary Death" and the first two parts of "Dr. Mabuse", and next would come "Spies", "Die Nibelungen", "Metropolis", "Woman in the Moon", "M", "The Testament of Dr. Mabuse" and the diptych "The Tiger of Eschnapur" and "The Indian Tomb". Harbou excelled in adventures, science-fiction and exotic melodramas (genres almost absent in Lang's American filmography), but here she is more than adequate describing a homosexual liaison tinted with economic interest, loneliness and a narcissistic game of mirrors, in the story of a painter and the young male model to whom he gives all his possessions, which are then spent by the boy in an affair with a ruined and unscrupulous princess. The theme of Death is present throughout the tale, and it is duplicated in the story of an affair between a count and a young woman, married to an old man. Besides Von Harbou, "Michael" includes first-rate personnel in other roles: the cinematographer is Expressionist maestro Karl Freund (director of photography of "The Last Man", "Metropolis", "Berlin, Symphony of a Great City" and Tod Browning's "Dracula"), who also plays a art dealer; the painter is played by Danish director Benjamin Christensen (the maker of "The Witch"), and the Italian operatic diva Nora Gregor (leading lady in Renoir's "The Rule of the Game") plays the princess. For the role of Michael, Dreyer used beautiful blond actor Walter Slezak, born under the sign of Taurus, and --as a good son of the bull-- too much attracted to good food and wine. When he reached 30 he had already lost his slenderness and in spite of his big, expressive blue eyes, for the industry he was too a chubby fellow to be a leading man. However, when he migrated to the United States he became an instant sensation in Broadway, winning a Tony award. In films he had a more discrete participation, but he also had other unforgettable roles, as the Nazi sailor in Alfred Hichcock's propaganda drama "Lifeboat", and as Rock Hudson's feisty majordomo in "Come September", turning his boss' Italian villa into a hotel during his absence, except every September. A good work of restoration, "Michael" includes a dense 1993 score by Pierre Oser.

---

Karl Freund in Front of the Camera, 8 March 2011

Author: gavin6942 from United States

A famous painter named Claude Zoret (Benjamin Christensen) falls in love with one of his models, Michael (Walter Slezak), and for a time the two live happily as partners. Zoret is considerably older than Michael, and as they age, Michael begins to drift from him, although Zoret is completely blind to this.

Directed by the great Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer, who went on to direct "The Passion of Joan of Arc", called by some "the most influential film of all time". Written by Dreyer, and Thea von Harbou, who is now probably best known as Fritz Lang's wife. Produced by Erich Pommer, which cinematography by Karl Freund. As far as 1920s German cinema goes, this is top drawer.

Along with "Different From the Others" (1919) and "Sex in Chains" (1928), "Michael" is widely considered a landmark in gay silent cinema. It has also been suggested that the film reflects personal feelings harbored by Dreyer after a purported homosexual affair, though I have no evidence of that.

This film was pretty great, despite being silent and foreign. Those factors took nothing away from the experience for me, and I have to give credit to Dreyer and the cast -- the film is full of very intense faces, which made up for the lack of any audible emotion.

What drew me to this film was having cameraman Karl Freund on camera. A genius behind it, this is a rare treat to see the man in front and caught on film. His role is fairly small, but captures his movements and body language in a way that no photograph ever could. To my knowledge, this was his last acting role in a film.

The film has been cited to have influenced several directors. Alfred Hitchcock drew upon motifs from "Michael" for his script for "The Blackguard" (1925).

---

Excellent Early Gay Drama, 7 August 2009

Author: NYLux from United States

This is a German silent film. Obviously it would take Hollywood at least half a century longer to get anywhere near this subject in such a natural manner, and in many ways, still to this day it has not produced anything to compare to this sensitive portrayal about an aging master painter (Benjamin Christensen) who takes a male model/hustler and aspiring painter (Walter Slezak) under his protection. Soon however, their relationship begins to change when both men encounter the gorgeous Princess Zamikoff (Nora Gregor) who is supposed to be ruined but happens to be on her way to the opera when she makes a visit to commission her portrait and comes back later dressed to kill, with an outfit that must have cost a fortune and that we must assume she did not pay for herself.

This clearly indicates that the Princess is a professional gold-digger-hustler, and though not a courtesan, certainly someone in the related business of living by her charms, with enough savoir-faire to be part of the trade. This is an important character trait of the woman in the triangle, because it makes perfect sense within the context of co-dependent sex relationships: She is hustling Michael as much as Michael hustles the painter and that is the actual mechanism of the relationship.

This is an excellent Dreyer film, not quite popular or well know here for the subject matter being an early example of a homosexual relationship. Most importantly, both of the men involved are portrayed as virile and masculine, there is no cross dressing, hilarity of character or the usual histrionics that was the sole, monolithic identity of gay men in an American cultural context until the arrival of "Brokeback Mountain". Some viewers may be in such denial as to the existence of a gay life for "straight-looking" men that they may debate that the film is not about homosexuality, as one of the men gets involved in a heterosexual relationship, and I completely disagree with this stance, as most gay men are actually like the ones in this movie and not like the more flamboyant part of the group that naturally steal the limelight and distort the statistical truth.

The complexities and variety of homosexual experience either in gay men or women have always posed a challenge on the imagination and intelligence of society, but we can not deny that there was much more than simple friendship between these two men, if only because there had to be a valid reason for Michael to accept money gifts and also steal as much from the painter. However, because there were an infinite amount of choices by means of which this could have been clarified, and certainly there are earlier movies that showed it was done in Germany ("Different from the Others" for example, 1919) I see this important detail as an error in character development and that's why I have given it an 8 ranking.

The cinematography by Rudolph Mate and Karl Freund is exquisitely handled. All details of decor, furnishing and costume are lavish and within the cultural context of the period. We see the subtle transitioning from Art Nouveau to early Deco in the differences between the older painter's home and the younger hustler's apartment.

The character of the suffering, self-sacrificing older lover in a relationship is a very 19th Century attitude and romantic posturing that reached a climax with Dumas famous "Dame aux Camelias" that became the "Camille" of the stage and movie adaptations as well as Verdi's "Traviata" in opera. Christensen's devoted love for Michael, even when he discovers his thievery and baseness is part of that socio-cultural heritage, the extreme of which had been Oscar Wilde in the generation before the one in this movie, which went one step further in the 'sacrifice' to self destruction. Within this context the painter's plight is totally believable and acceptable, but aside from the artistic beauty of the film itself, the important message that comes through is the validity and truth of that love.

---

The Victor, 16 August 2008

Author: wes-connors from Earth

Master painter Benjamin Christensen (as Claude Zoret) doesn't like the sketches offered for review by budding artist Walter Slezak (as Michael); instead, he asks the attractive young man to become his model. Mr. Christensen takes a liking to Mr. Slezak; and, soon, they are like father and son. Then, an alluring woman arrives to request Christensen paint her portrait. Young Slezak is attracted to his benefactor's feminine model, Nora Gregor (as Countess Zamikoff); and, the young models begin an affair. Christensen becomes despondent over the loss of his ward's attentions. While carrying on with Ms. Gregor, Slezak takes increasing advantage of Christensen's generosity. Will the old painter cut him off?

The homosexuality currently heralded to be found in Carl Theodor Dreyer' "Michael" is so subtle it's almost invisible. The Christensen-Slezak couplings must have occurred during their time in Algiers, which is over when the film begins. An even earlier affair, between Christensen and Robert Garrison (as Charles Switt), is a little clearer. It's nice to see cinematographer Karl Freund (as M. Leblanc), the art dealer who informs Christensen that Slezak is endeavoring to sell "The Victor", a painting which symbolizes their once close relationship. "Michael" requires more concentration than your average silent; to help, the overall production is excellent.

******** Michael (1924) Carl Theodor Dreyer ~ Benjamin Christensen, Walter Slezak, Nora Gregor

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history