Own the rights?
27 out of 32 people found the following review useful: Have we changed so little?, 16 May 2004 Author: Havan_IronOak from NYC
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
21 out of 23 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 previously. 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.
8 out of 9 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!
3 out of 3 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.
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: wesconnorsehny 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
An early gay love triangle?!, 22 April 2008 Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
It's funny, but when I saw this film it sure seemed to be a story with a strongly gay subtext--even though the film was supposedly not about homosexuality. I really think that in 1924, this was MEANT to be the point but the film never directly said this--at least this is so with the English language version. Perhaps the European version was more explicit.Why do I say this? Well, the film is about a brilliant painter and his muse/favorite model. Both are men and late in the film, the aging painter referred to the young man as his "adopted son and heir", but this seemed like a cover for the truth. Instead, it seemed like a love triangle, as the two men were happy and successful living together until the model met a woman and began taking the old guy for granted AND mistreating him badly. The painter, for his part, seemed like a dependent lover who never stood up to the young man for his mistreatment. In the end, when the old man died, he really seemed to have died from a broken heart after it was apparent that the younger man was never returning.I sure wish I had a time machine so I could meet with the director, Dreyer, to determine if this gay subtext was intended. It sure seemed this way and the way they explained it all away seemed tough to believe--it just didn't seem to fit. In addition, most everyone reviewing this film also thought it was about homosexuality and I am sure they'd like a clear and unequivocal answer.Now as for the film, it was wonderfully made--with some great camera work and a decent plot for a silent. Not a masterpiece, but a very good and unjustly forgotten film--one of Dreyer's best.
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful: Contrived melodrama, 10 November 2008 Author: samhill5215 from United States
It's difficult for me to write a negative review for a Dryer film but I found "Michael" to be extremely confused on every level. I was left with the overall impression that it was little more than a tiresome succession of knowing looks, glowering eyes, arched eyebrows, still portraits and stilted dialog. Starting with the story, even allowing for the times, the relationship between Michael and the Master is anything but clear. At first we're left with the impression they were lovers but as the film progresses this becomes less and less certain. As a homosexual Michael could not be attracted to the Countess yet he is and ultimately betrays the Master for her. So does he then take up with the Master for the comforts provided by him? That would make him a gigolo of the worst kind but Dryer avoids even that label, one that would be easy and natural. It's easy to make allowances for the times but Germany in the twenties was culturally and intellectually an open and experimental society. Yes, a film about overt homosexuals might have received negative attention but was not beyond the pale. How much of a superior film this would have been had Michael been more clearly portrayed as a homosexual, albeit a confused one who, uncertain of his sexuality, seeks to define himself through his affair with the Countess. Or as a bisexual, either a mercenary one who seeks the easiest path to the comforts of life, or a conflicted one torn by his love for the Master and the Countess.As for the technical aspects I'm also baffled by the editing. In the scene between the Master and the art dealer the Master is shown sitting, then standing facing the art dealer, then again sitting, then again standing. In the Master's death scene his valet is shown crying and walking away and then adjusting the Master's pillow. And these are the obvious ones. And the dialog could not have been more convoluted. If anything it contributed to the overwhelming confusion. Could Dryer really intend to release the film like this?In the final analysis is this film worth seeing? Of course, and for four reasons, given here in no particular order: a thin Walter Slezak in his second film, Benjamin Christensen as actor instead of director, the subject matter, and because after all it is a Dryer film. Hence my rating of four out of ten.
Add another review
