miliosr

The Films of Greta Garbo

214 posts in this topic

I don't remember the break between the conventions of silent film acting and young Garbo's as being quite that stark. Not that she isn't plainly different from the eye-poppers and most natural within the style of the time, but still within the style. I haven't seen Anna Christie for many moons, my impression being much the same as yours, miliosr, but given the transition underway at the time Garbo's falling back on certain stock gestures would not be surprising.

Share this post


Link to post

I had watched 'Romance' maybe 8 years ago, and then recently watched it several times. It comes between the two 'Anna Christies', and I noticed none of the gestures associated with silent films anywhere in the performance, which is pretty talky (in the modern sense of the word) anyway. So I had thought it was a later film, maybe even 1935. Was very surprised to look at the list and find it coming immediately after this first AC. Her leading man in 'Romance', Gavin Gordon, is pretty stolid and not glamorous, but as a cleric who falls in love with an opera singer, he comes off okay. Never heard from him again, though (although I see he did do a lot of things, ending up with 'Petticoat Junction' and the like. I like this film a lot, and has marvelous costumes that befit an opera singer--and, although you never see her dubbed singing, you hear the 'operatic voice', and I can never picture her as actually singing. That's a flaw, or at least they should have tried to show her singing/dubbed, they could have probably done it (in 'grand hotel', you never see her a the ballerina, but she does seem like a Russian ballerina in some of her walks through the hotel, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post

The German-language version of Anna Christie is on the flip side of the English-language DVD. Since Romance is not included in the box set, the German-language version is next up in the cue. I'm curious to see how the movies -- and Garbo's performances -- compare.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to say how much I am enjoying this thread and learning from it.

Whatever Happened to Mystery?

Brantley begins with an homage to Garbo's style.

WHERE have all the sphinxes gone? There’s not a person on this planet today who could make my heart stop as it did when I saw Greta Garbo on Madison Avenue. It was the last day of 1985, on an afternoon steeped in that merciless brightness you associate with early winter in the city, and, suddenly, there she was: a bulky fur coat, a knitted watch cap and an unpainted face, as closed as a fist, behind big sunglasses that had no aspiration to trendiness.

If you didn’t know who she was, she was nothing special. She didn’t look chic, not even rich, amid the well-buffed, well-tailored women with big shopping bags and little dogs. But Miss Garbo had on something none of those ladies could afford: She was wearing six decades’ worth of well-documented silence. And that made her the most glamorous creature I had ever set eyes on.

I love those last two sentences, which I have put in boldface. I also appreciate the way Brantley goes on to puncture the balloon he has just released into the air.

Garbo couldn’t exist in the 21st century. I mean Garbo the lady of mystery, not the rather dull, stingy woman who is reported to have resided behind the persona.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, bart, I linked that yesterday on the thread, but I can say a bit more now. I don't care for the article because, of course, there can be no 'movie star goddess' mystery like Garbo anymore, but as for 'mystery vanishing', that's false. Mystery always changes 'location', and it's still just as discoverable, including in other human beings, as it ever was. Maybe there's not a 'person on this planet who could make his heart stop the way Garbo did on Madison Avenue', but there are plenty who could excite me much more than the one sighting I had of Garbo just over from the Met Museum in her old scruffy winter coat. Of course, it's her very refusal to keep working and continue being an actress that gave her even more 'aura' than Dietrich or K. Hepburn, who did, but for many people, that's considered the dissipation of her talent. It's fine with me what she did with her life, and she had already left a unique contribution with her films, but mystery and charisma go elsewhere once they're worn out from one form or period. There aren't movie stars like that anymore, but there aren't ballet stars in the same sense as Nureyev anymore either (even if they're just as attractive and maybe, in some cases, even greater dancers).

He's calling the 'six decades of well-documented silence' as making her 'the most glamorous creature he'd ever laid eyes on'. This is pure hyperbolic nonsense as far as I'm concerned. She was not even beautiful (I hate to say this) when I saw her a few years before he did. But, while I admit her stubborn silence is an interesting phenomenon and makes her unique, it also means she may have liked the 'goddess' part of the persona more than the Thespian. K. Hepburn was much less unreachable, but kept on turning out work. Edith Evans is far more distinguished as an actress (nevermind it's not in movies), although she's not as glamorous.

Brantley's just a big Garbo junkie. I'm a big fan too, but there are other film actresses I like at least as well, although probably none from the Hollywood Golden Age--those being Catherine Deneuve and Delphine Seyrig. The former is far more naturally glamorous, despite being extroverted, than Garbo, and has delivered many performances I find comparable to Garbo's and to sometimes surpass them. Seyrig is extremely mysterious, and starred in two Resnais masterpieces, ' Last Year at Marienbad' and 'Muriel'. Either of these films is far greater than any film of Garbo's IMO--and Seyrig is even a better actress than Garbo, and just as luminous onscreen (more than Deneuve, which you see when the two are together in scenes of 'La Peau d'Ane'). I like to watch Garbo because she is such a singular performer, and I do think a great ACTRESS. I really don't find her very interesting roaming the East Side and exuding mystique all over the place, especially since she did not look good when I did see her.

Here's the real meaning of the article, and the article is about Brantley, not Garbo, or Diana or Jackie:

"When we first fall in love with people, they always seem remote, unattainable. Holding on to love after you’ve crossed the divide between you and the object of your desire is a chapter in achieving maturity; it’s what marriage is supposed to be. But there’s a part of us that needs to keep falling in love with the girl in the mists in the distance or the boy riding away on a horse. You’ve been there, I’m sure, and you know what happens when these dream girls and boys open their mouths or scratch themselves. The mystery dissolves like fog at sunrise."

I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever read, it does no such thing necessarily, and sounds very much like a cognate of unrequited love. When these 'dream girls and boys' 'open their mouths or scratch themselves', they often become even more enhanced and attractive than they were before. God forbid they should let us know their humanity and that they're even available and accessible to some people who aren't concerned about pedestal vigilance.

Not all of us live vicariously through these pristine idealized figures. As unattainable, it would follow that they could never be real objects of adult sexuality, which itself contains a lot of mystery, and to some of us is considerably more alluring than some eccentric silence, as it were. In any case, there are planty of books that prove she was anything but silent in private.

But extreme fans are extreme fans. That's how I see Brantley. I think Garbo's long act after she retired was impressive, but nowhere nearly as impressive as he does, obviously. We do not all need to be 'denied entry' to find someone or something pristine, mysterious, or irresistible. But that is not uncommon. Obviously, there are some who really are turned on by this sort inaccessibility (in itself, I mean. It's obviously a starting place, but lots of people who do manage to get to know their idols do not love them any the less--we have some on this very board who prove that with their constant excitement about certain 'ballet divas'.)

Edited to add: I also don't like that he refers to Garbo as 'dull and stingy'. She could be tightfisted sometimes, but was also generous, but she certainly was not dull, and even the very persona he worships nullifies that characterization.

Share this post


Link to post

papeetepatrick:

God forbid they should let us know their humanity ...

I don't agree that it's bad piece -- actually it's not really an article and such things are often about the author -- but I do agree that "dull and stingy" is stingy of him and a cliche, a bit of paint splashed on his idol. "Distance is the soul of beauty" Simone Weil said, maybe about history and bigger things, but there are figures who appear in people's lives they've never gotten over and who become romantic images of inaccessibly, but having this happen time and again is probably not a good thing. And I agree that there's already lots of intriguing silence and "heathy unattainability" in adult relationships. The Brantley part about the beloved first speaking is comic and patronizing -- it's falling in love with the person and leaving the person out.

But the thing with Garbo that places her above all others -- whether by design or accident -- is that she didn't "sell out" her aura or our good faith in her talent when every formerly elegant star was doing some little postwar homespun television series set in the suburbs (real movies were urban) -- though Ninotchka did come close.

miliosr:

The direction (like the movie itself) is horribly static and made this viewer feel like he was watching a filmed version of a stage performance.

Clarence Brown was a fairly dull director but add to that the radical change of technology, a slide definite backwards of a decade or so. Camera movements that had been so free and fluid -- think of Murnau or Fritz Lang "M" with its famous tracking shots -- were suddenly grounded with huge blimps to muffle the sound. Sound technology itself was very primitive with probably a very narrow range -- like AM radio -- in the first years, deep voices were probably more effective, like Tugboat Annie Marie Dressler's. European films were always dubbed in afterwards perhaps because of this. Rene Clair was able to maintain moving camera shots well into the sound era, paving the way for Ruben Mamoulian's experiments.

As an example, microphones were hidden in flower arrangements in the first talkies until Dorothy Azner fabricated the traveling boom for Clara Bow.

Share this post


Link to post

The limited mobility necessitated by the new sound equipment and the flower arrangements were the subject of some of 'Singin' in the Rain's better gags ("I CAN'T make love to a BUSH!").

Brantley's "dull and stingy" is no more than a concise way of putting what seems to be close enough to the truth, although as papeetepatrick points out there is some evidence in the opposite direction. Garbo was fortunate in that by good luck, good management, and canny friendships she did not have to work or else there's every possibility we might have seen her in less exalted formats. A fair number of stars got gypped out of their earnings; some of their less dignified appearances might be called "selling out," but people have to eat. Others simply wanted to go on performing, and female stars couldn't go on for decades without heavier compromises than aging male stars had to make. Like all performers some of them went on too long, but that's not "selling out," either, merely poor judgment.

Here's the real meaning of the article, and the article is about Brantley

Any writer reveals something of himself in such an article. There were a lot of people who got the same thrill he did from a Garbo sighting. You didn't share it, but we're all different. I daresay we give away about as much ourselves in these little forum posts of ours. :) I do find articles of this kind interesting although not necessarily in the way the writers intend.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it wasn't the same thrill, nor would it be possible for anyone to find the same thrill of anything someone else did. I did think it was exciting just to see her, I just was surprised I didn't find her beautiful--and I usually do find people I thought once were incredibly beautiful (and I do think Garbo was, esp. in 'Anna Karenina') usually so when they get older as well. She looked morose and sour, and I didn't find the scruffy clothes 'quaint and charming', just ill-fitting and boxy. Of course, she didn't care. Just sticking to Hollywood stars I've seen in real life, and not other celebs, I've seen several who were visually stunning even if I thought there talents were vastly inferior--or even their basic endowment of beauty as I perceive it: to see Lana Turner in person at 62 was a Work of Art, a near-hallucination of superbly lurid and original exoticism way beyond any look I ever saw her project onscreen. I don't know how much this has to do with 'cameras loving people' etc., as is supposed to be the case with Marilyn and others. Ann-Margret was also beautiful in person, and Burt Lancaster was magnificent with no effort at all, same with Liam Neesson. To take one non-showbiz celeb who is at least as famous as Garbo, the queen of England was gorgeous in public (1976), although she never ever photographs as well as that.

Brantley's "dull and stingy" is no more than a concise way of putting what seems to be close enough to the truth, although as papeetepatrick points out there is some evidence in the opposite direction.

The 'evidence to the contrary' would have to do with disagreement that she was 'stingy', there's really no question that she was dull--this was rendered impossible by all the things she did do to refuse what quiggin pointed out in 'not selling out her aura'--if she was solipsistic, lazy and demanding, these not particularly admirable (in themselves) qualities still served 'the act'. Since she did continue to do this full-time, that's either something one decides is dull or not. Brantley could make up his mind about that, but I don't care whether he does or not.

I wouldn't agree quite with quiggin's assessment of all 'formerly elegant stars' having done some 'suburban television series', or a version thereof. Dietrich had her shows on B'way, even after the years of working with Burt Bacharach, and Kate Hepburn continued to have a singular niche as an aging star (didn't ever do the horror Gothics like Davis and Crawford), although it 'Ninotchka' comes close to corn (and I agree it does, I don't like it), then certainly 'On Golden Pond' does.

Barbra Streisand is really the one who has held herself above her public from the very beginning: There were never any appearances on the Tonight Show or other TV till much much later, when she got friendlier. But she didn't have to do any more of what she didn't want to than Garbo did, and I think she's the only one comparable that way in terms of sheer power. The difference is that she does like to work sometimes, of course, and is not so withdrawn. Of course, by 'Meet the Fockers', she'd gone straight to the sewer, but it happens to everybody at some point, and she always knows how to get right out of crud and do another incredible concert.

This: "Diana, Princess of Wales, had it, too, and weren’t we lucky that the royal family kept her from talking for as long as it did?" was, I thought, the most absurd thing in the piece: we weren't 'lucky' even if they had kept her shutup, her banal utterances were there from the very beginning, and continued to the end. But they didn't keep her shutup, she was always saying something tiresome like 'I wish there were more huggers', etc., and blah and blah and blah. That doesn't mean I didn't think she was a beauty, and her charisma for many was obvious, I just didn't find her very interesting, but who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course it wasn't the same thrill, nor would it be possible for anyone to find the same thrill of anything someone else did. I did think it was exciting just to see her, I just was surprised I didn't find her beautiful--and I usually do find people I thought once were incredibly beautiful (and I do think Garbo was, esp. in 'Anna Karenina') usually so when they get older as well. She looked morose and sour, and I didn't find the scruffy clothes 'quaint and charming', just ill-fitting and boxy. Of course, she didn't care. Just sticking to Hollywood stars I've seen in real life, and not other celebs, I've seen several who were visually stunning even if I thought there talents were vastly inferior--or even their basic endowment of beauty as I perceive it: to see Lana Turner in person at 62 was a Work of Art, a near-hallucination of superbly lurid exoticism way beyond any look I ever saw her project onscreen. I don't know how much this has to do with 'cameras loving people' etc., as is supposed to be the case with Marilyn and others. Ann-Margret was also beautiful in person, and Burt Lancaster was magnificent with no effort at all, same with Liam Neesson. To take one non-showbiz celeb who is at least as famous as Garbo, the queen of England was gorgeous in public (1976), although she never ever photographs as well as that.

I think it's harder to hold people in awe when you see them on a regular basis, even if it's just standing in line at the grocery checkout next to the tabloid stands. I frequent the Hollywood YMCA, and quite a few working and successful actors use the facilities. There's nothing to dampen the awe like seeing a big-name actor sweating beside you on the treadmill. :sweatingbullets:

Yes, the stories of Lana Turner's beauty have been legendary since she was a teenager. Until she passed, Miss Turner lived in the penthouse apartment of the building my grandparents lived in, and she was always magnificent (although I'm pretty sure not unenhanced)in person.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd actually say that what Brantley is talking about (Garbo's famous aloofness and mystique) is what gives her films a slightly dated quality, whereas the movies of, say, Carole Lombard or Barbara Stanwyck still crackle with vitality. Garbo in most of her movies is sort of static, and always seems like Garbo Playing Christina, or Garbo Playing Marguerite, etc. Her screen persona was based on the idea that in real life, you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious. It's like a mannequin came to life. It works well, but there is a distancing effect.

I wonder what directors like Alfred Hitchcock might have been able to do with Garbo, since Hitchcock wrote the mystery and aloofness into his movies.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd actually say that what Brantley is talking about (Garbo's famous aloofness and mystique) is what gives her films a slightly dated quality, whereas the movies of, say, Carole Lombard or Barbara Stanwyck still crackle with vitality. Garbo in most of her movies is sort of static, and always seems like Garbo Playing Christina, or Garbo Playing Marguerite, etc. Her screen persona was based on the idea that in real life, you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious. It's like a mannequin came to life. It works well, but there is a distancing effect.

I love that phrase: "a distancing effect." It's what I feel too.
I wonder what directors like Alfred Hitchcock might have been able to do with Garbo, since Hitchcock wrote the mystery and aloofness into his movies.
Intriguing question.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd actually say that what Brantley is talking about (Garbo's famous aloofness and mystique) is what gives her films a slightly dated quality, whereas the movies of, say, Carole Lombard or Barbara Stanwyck still crackle with vitality. Garbo in most of her movies is sort of static, and always seems like Garbo Playing Christina, or Garbo Playing Marguerite, etc. Her screen persona was based on the idea that in real life, you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious. It's like a mannequin came to life. It works well, but there is a distancing effect.

I wonder what directors like Alfred Hitchcock might have been able to do with Garbo, since Hitchcock wrote the mystery and aloofness into his movies.

Agree with some of that, but not that they're more dated--they're all dated. I think Garbo is like Suzanne Farrell, aloof and distant, maybe even sometimes a mannequin come to life, as you say. And although it probably IS based on the idea that in real life you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious, that illusion only works if you buy into it: I've seen and known plenty of people in real life that I thought were as beautiful and mysterious (if not more so) than Garbo (yes, onscreen Garbo even), I just think her uniqueness is being suited for these bigger-than-life roles, including her ponderously described '6 decades of documented silence.' I will say that I think that persona after retirement does give the old 'real work' more value in a certain sense. It's not as though it's a miniscule output in any case.

I like your point about 'crackling with vitality', though. While I do think 'Susan Lennox' crackles with vitality, REALLY crackling with vitality is like the opening of 'The Letter', which, when Bette Davis bolts out onto the porch with the gun, is maybe my most enjoyed scene in all 'Golden Age' films. All I have to do is think about it, although I'd rather see it. Plus, you're right about Stanwyck, especially in 'Double Indemnity', when she first comes down the stairs in the platforms, and then later 'you-ah huh-ting me' to McMurray, when they're supposed to be celebrating their vicious plans for crime, but she's more than ever concerned only with the immediate sensation (in this case, minor pain.)

Share this post


Link to post
I like your point about 'crackling with vitality', though. While I do think 'Susan Lennox' crackles with vitality, REALLY crackling with vitality is like the opening of 'The Letter', which, when Bette Davis bolts out onto the porch with the gun, is maybe my most enjoyed scene in all 'Golden Age' films. All I have to do is think about it, although I'd rather see it. Plus, you're right about Stanwyck, especially in 'Double Indemnity', when she first comes down the stairs in the platforms, and then later 'you-ah huh-ting me' to McMurray, when they're supposed to be celebrating their vicious plans for crime, but she's more than ever concerned only with the immediate sensation (in this case, minor pain.)

I agree with Bette Davis in so many films literally leaping off the screen. My favorite is when she starts screaming at Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage." Barbara Stanwyck also, as I said, really just crackles with vitality in so many of her films, as does Carole Lombard, Katharine Hepburn, or even the slightly lesser known screen goddesses as Margaret Sullavan, Claudette Colbert, Jean Arthur, Rosalind Russell, Irene Dunne, etc. All from the same era as Garbo. The difference is that all of these ladies were less beautiful than Garbo and had less mystique. But because they were less beautiful, I often felt like they compensated by creating a very lively, engaging screen presence.

I agree that Garbo maybe wasn't even the most beautiful screen actress of all time (for me, that honor goes to Audrey Hepburn), but she definitely had an aloof, mysterious look and persona that added to her legend but makes her films seem somewhat static and more like star vehicles than truly great films.

Another thing about Garbo was that she was notoriously stubborn with directors. She didn't like listening to their directions, and sometimes barred them when she shot scenes altogether. I do wonder whether this contributed to the "star vehicle" feel of her projects. She worked well with Ernst Lubitsch but then decided never to work with him. A stronger director with less tolerance of star antics might have been able to draw a better ensemble from her films.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder what directors like Alfred Hitchcock might have been able to do with Garbo, since Hitchcock wrote the mystery and aloofness into his movies.

I can't see Garbo as a Hitchcock heroine. Hitchcock had a strong misogynistic streak in most of his films, and his heroines are virtually always humiliated and/or tortured in some way. Besides the icy sensuality that they are famous for, the actresses most closely identified with Hitchcock tend to be able to project a vulnerability that I don't see in the same way with Garbo. Garbo's screen persona tends to project a towering strength in the face of adversity that I don't see integrating well into Hitchcock.

I'd actually say that what Brantley is talking about (Garbo's famous aloofness and mystique) is what gives her films a slightly dated quality, whereas the movies of, say, Carole Lombard or Barbara Stanwyck still crackle with vitality. Garbo in most of her movies is sort of static, and always seems like Garbo Playing Christina, or Garbo Playing Marguerite, etc. Her screen persona was based on the idea that in real life, you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious. It's like a mannequin came to life. It works well, but there is a distancing effect.

I think most of those actresses really came into their own in the Sound Era. Garbo bridged the period between silent and sound, but there is something about her that for me, always telegraphs that she started as a silent film icon. She really had the perfect face for silent film, and by that, I don't mean because of her beauty. There's the scene in "Sunset Boulevard" where Norma Desmond complains about the sound acting, and how the silent film stars didn't need sounds, "We had FACES!"

Garbo has that kind of face that in some ways doesn't convey feeling and emotion itself, but is perfect for allowing audiences to project their own feelings onto. Mamoulian's final shot in "Queen Christina" is almost a perfect example of it. Is Christina looking forward to the unknown? Still mourning John Gilbert's death? Regretting her abdication? It's whatever the audience wants it to be. Dreiser describes something similar at the end of "Sister Carrie" about why Carrie becomes such a star, but I've always thought Garbo is the perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that Garbo would not have made a good match for Hitchcock. She was too powerful a presence for most of his leading lady roles although she alone might have made "Marnie" watchable. (Garbo and Sean Connery - what a matchup.)

Dreiser describes something similar at the end of "Sister Carrie" about why Carrie becomes such a star, but I've always thought Garbo is the perfect example.

I think I see what you mean, sidwich, but I don't think Dreiser ever intended to suggest that Carrie became a star of Garbo's caliber (Carrie's not big enough for that.)

"Dated" can be in the eye of the beholder. As papeetepatrick says, all these movies are dated in a sense. The question is whether the culture has changed so much that the style, content, and perspective have become too remote for genuine audience identification (as is the case with many silent pictures and some from the golden age). The expensive prestige vehicles that Garbo made in the 30s tend to have less zip than many of the comedies and melodramas of the era, but her "Anna Karenina" is as decent an adaptation as we've seen and screen Annas have been compared to her unfavorably ever since, much as her Marguerite Gauthier became the standard for the role.

A stronger director with less tolerance of star antics might have been able to draw a better ensemble from her films.

If the players surrounding her were not always up to par she's not necessarily responsible for that, unless you count her loyalty to Gilbert at the time of Queen Christina. She was often at her best when playing opposite actors who really gave her something to play against, as in her scenes with Barrymore in Grand Hotel and Henry Daniell in Camille. (It would have been nice if she'd nixed Robert Taylor, oh well.)

It works well, but there is a distancing effect.

Godhead is a distancing effect. :) But when I first saw Camille years ago in an art house revival, when Garbo died the audience snuffles were highly audible and some were barking like seals. miliosr has mentioned her expressive and fluid acting in her silent pictures. When sound arrived she became a different kind of presence but she was hardly Old Stone Face.

miliosr, where's the next report? Waiting eagerly.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't see Garbo as a Hitchcock heroine. Hitchcock had a strong misogynistic streak in most of his films, and his heroines are virtually always humiliated and/or tortured in some way. Besides the icy sensuality that they are famous for, the actresses most closely identified with Hitchcock tend to be able to project a vulnerability that I don't see in the same way with Garbo. Garbo's screen persona tends to project a towering strength in the face of adversity that I don't see integrating well into Hitchcock.

Yes, she always does have that strength in the face of adversity. I'm not sure she couldn't convey vulnerability, but she probably didn't spend much time on it. Kim Novak was a tough cookie too, but didn't have what is also a somewhat asexual aura, or of course, Garbo's streak of masculinity, Novak has 'been around', but she's basically pretty feminine in a traditional (although very cool) sense, without being silly or flouncy. Garbo can be sexy in her screen scenes with any number of leading men, but she's not often soft. There is one scene early on with Gable in 'Susan Lennox' which is very exceptional that way: She's the one who ratchets up the 'embrace decibels', not Gable, and it's quite arresting--looks a little as if she's climbing a tree. (I'm a big fan of this film, but most aren't, even big Garbo buffs. It's episodie, but very colorful and full of exotic whiffs.)

She really had the perfect face for silent film, and by that, I don't mean because of her beauty.

Garbo has that kind of face that in some ways doesn't convey feeling and emotion itself, but is perfect for allowing audiences to project their own feelings onto. Mamoulian's final shot in "Queen Christina" is almost a perfect example of it. Is Christina looking forward to the unknown? Still mourning John Gilbert's death? Regretting her abdication? It's whatever the audience wants it to be.

or just getting the perfect Garbo 'still photo' in a film? That's cool, and it sure works. And I agree with the rest of what you say about the kind of face, that it still registers 'silent film', and I think it does this to some degree throughout the films, although it's certainly not very noticeable in the last two. I find her famous laughter in 'Ninotchka' rather sad, frankly, it's a bit painful. Her funny little guttural chuckle in the earlier films is much more the real thing, short and staccato.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, she always does have that strength in the face of adversity. I'm not sure she couldn't convey vulnerability, but she probably didn't spend much time on it. Kim Novak was a tough cookie too, but didn't have what is also a somewhat asexual aura, or of course, Garbo's streak of masculinity,

What I meant was that Hitchcock's leading ladies, by and large, tend to be just that - leading ladies, with all existing exceptions noted. Not so much in the size of the part but where the story is focused. Rear Window and Vertigo are centered on the James Stewart character; Cary Grant is the protagonist of To Catch a Thief and North by Northwest. You could put Garbo in such a role, but there wouldn't be much point and she'd probably swamp it. Similar to what sidwich said about her being too strong for such parts (although Garbo's strength never precludes vulnerability).

Share this post


Link to post

What I meant was that Hitchcock's leading ladies, by and large, tend to be just that - leading ladies, with all existing exceptions noted. Not so much in the size of the part but where the story is focused. Rear Window and Vertigo are centered on the James Stewart character; Cary Grant is the protagonist of To Catch a Thief and North by Northwest. You could put Garbo in such a role, but there wouldn't be much point and she'd probably swamp it. Similar to what sidwich said about her being too strong for such parts (although Garbo's strength never precludes vulnerability).

Yes, that's well said. To revert to some casting preferences you brought up, I really would have liked to see Olivier instead of Robert Taylor more than replacing Gilbert (I remember when she was not going to discuss the Queen Christina matter with him from his autobio, it's funny, because he's good with phonetics and was amused with it, she apparently said 'Oh vell, live'sh a pain'. He does a House of Lords phonetic in that same volume which is equally funny.) And Olivier would have been ready for that at that point, although I suppose it never even came up.

Not quite as convinced of your Sean Connery/Garbo Fantasy. She has a singular elegance, but it's not really the social elegance other high-toned types have. Csn't see her too easily with Cary Grant either. I think the major omission in leading men is with Gary Cooper (had it been possible), they'd have made much more than sparks together, and she couldn't have 'swamped him', he's the type that, as they say, doesn't have to do anything but stand there. Not that she didn't have that attitude down pat herself, but I think he'd have been able to handle her just as he did Ingrid Bergman, tough and gentle and not at all apologetic about being all-american (I loved that stuff in the movie with Bergman when he kept telling her to 'talk American'.) But I do agree she would have been great with Olivier.

Share this post


Link to post

Hitchcock apparently wanted Garbo for "The Paradine Case", according to a PBS documentary narrated by Glenn Close that aired some years back. I can't quite picture that working out to anyone's advantage.

On the subject of Garbo's leading men, I wish she had been paired with Charles Boyer again. He, along with Henry Daniell and Clark Gable, matched her talent and wasn't obliterated by her presence.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for mentioning that, DanceActress. I do recall some mention of Garbo for the role played by Alida Valli. I agree, I don't think it would have improved matters any. That movie is chloroform, for this viewer anyway. (

On the subject of Garbo's leading men, I wish she had been paired with Charles Boyer again. He, along with Henry Daniell and Clark Gable, matched her talent and wasn't obliterated by her presence.

Agreed here as well. It's too bad that she wasn't in top form for Conquest.

Gable and she were an interesting pair. The love scenes are surprisingly hot but in others they appear not to have been properly introduced, as I think I've said before. But certainly he's got screen presence to match hers.

Can't see her too easily with Cary Grant either.

No - Grant had a lightness of touch even in drama that would have made him a bad match for the Big Emotional Ladies.

Share this post


Link to post

miliosr, where's the next report? Waiting eagerly.

I'll be watching the German version of Anna Christie soon with a report to follow!

Share this post


Link to post

Moving on . . .

Anna Christie -- German-language version (Premiere: December 22, 1930)

Cast: Garbo (Anna), Theo Small (Matt), Hans Junkermann (Chris), Salka Steuermann a.k.a. Salka Viertel (Marthy)

Director: Jacques Feyder

Cinematographer: William Daniels

Costumes by: Adrian

Cost: ? Combined Gross - English&German versions: $1,500,000

The German-language version of Anna Christie was Garbo's thirteenth picture for M-G-M. (Romance intervened between the two productions of Anna Christie.) Filming a German version of Anna Christie was part of M-G-M's early talkie policy of filming multiple versions of a film in different languages. (Around the same time, Ramon Novarro made French and Spanish-language versions of his English-language film, Call Of the Flesh.)

Everyone's going to read what I have to write and say, "miliosr is being deliberately contradictory again" but, wow, what a difference a year made! The German version is so far superior to the English version that you almost can't believe the source material is the same. Even though the same limitations applied to the German version as did to the English version -- static source material, microphone-related constraints -- the German version came to life in a way the English version never did.

The biggest and most positive changes are the different actors playing Matt and Chris. They are so much more subtle than their two predecessors that they change the movie. Matt is no longer a brute and Chris is no longer a simpleton. Suddenly, the viewer goes from wondering why Anna would want to be around these two bozos to becoming invested in her predicament.

Garbo herself is immeasurably better in the second version than she was in the first. The stronger leading men may have been part of it and having a better director may have helped as well. Or, perhaps, having the opportunity to take the measure of the role again led her to give a better performance the second time around. Regardless of the reason(s), she is masterful in this and the silent screen excesses from the English version are completely absent. (Again, this may warrant a tip of the hat to the director.)

The only letdown for me was Salka Viertel as Marthy. After Marie Dressler's exemplary performance in the English version, anything would have come as a letdown. But Viertel's performance is hammy in the worst silent manner, as if she hadn't gotten the memo that she was appearing in a sound film. Still, Viertel would become a very important part of the Garbo camp in the 30s.

The print on the DVD comes with subtitles and I could only wish that the English-language version came with them as well -- better to understand Charles Bickford's barking of his lines and George F. Marion's incomprehensible "Swedish" accent. The source print is OK but definitely is showing its age. There is no commentary track.

Film grade: A- (Bumped down from an A because Viertel is no Marie Dressler.)

Garbo grade: A

Share this post


Link to post

I just finished watching Mata Hari -- oh brother! Review to follow later this week . . .

Share this post


Link to post

Moving on . . .

Mata Hari (1931/32) (Premiere: 12/31/31)

Cast: Garbo (Mata Hari), Ramon Novarro (Lt. Alexis Rosanoff), Lionel Barrymore (General Shubin), Lewis Stone (Andriani)

Director: George Fitzmaurice

Cinematographer: William Daniels

Gowns by: Adrian

Cost: $558,000 US Gross: $931,000 Foreign Gross: $1,296,000 Profit: $879,000 (Andre Soares), $1,000,000+ (Mark Viera)

Mata Hari was Garbo's sixteenth picture for M-G-M and sixth talkie. She had had a good year in 1931 with Inspiration (w/ Robert Montgomery) and Susan Lenox: Her Fall and Rise (w/ Clark Gable). There is some dispute about how the Garbo-Novarro pairing came about as various sources report that (alternately) Garbo wanted it, Novarro wanted it and/or Thalberg wanted it. Regardless of who wanted what, the combination of Garbo and Novarro proved to be dynamite at the box office, especially overseas, where Garbo and Novarro were M-G-M's #1 and #2 earners respectively, and proved to be the most profitable film in both of their careers.

As for the picture itself, I'm reminded of Andrew McCarthy's words to Demi Moore in St. Elmo's Fire: There is the edge of insanity and then there is the abyss. Truly, this is a ludicrous movie -- it lurches from implausible plot development to implausible plot development over the course of 89 minutes. From the get-go, you never believe that any of this is really happening. Obviously, the script is the main culprit here as it strands the performers in one bizarre situation after another until the picture lurches to a semi-respectable conclusion.

Garbo looks like she was having a ball making this movie and no wonder: She got to vamp it up as the (heavily fictionalized) spy Mata Hari. Unfortunately, she may have had too much fun on the set because she never quite gets a handle on the character. There are times where she plays things deadly seriously. But then there are an equal number of times where she drifts perilously close to camp and even self-parody.

Adrian's costumes for her are ludicrous (except for the final, simple one in the prison) and defeat her at every turn. Far from looking like a seductive temptress who can make men fall in love with her at the drop of a hat, Adrian's gowns and costumes make her look unattractive and even oafish. (The costume for her big dance number at the start of the picture is particularly bad.)

I have to give Novarro a pass as Rosanoff because the part as written is so implausible. Depending on the necessities of the plot at any given moment, Rosanoff is either a tough Russian aviator or a childlike simpleton. I am hard-pressed to name anyone working in Hollywood at that time who could have made this part work. (Strangely enough, I could envision Sergei Polunin of the Royal Ballet playing this part if Mata Hari was a ballet.)

The rest of the performances are as overbroad as you would expect given the overripe script with the exception of that wily veteran Lewis Stone as Mata Hari's cunning "boss" Andriani. Stone brings real menace and heft to a movie badly in need of some.

William Daniels works his magic here and I must say that there are some marvelous set pieces. In particular, the seduction scene in Rosanoff's darkened quarters where Rosanoff has to choose between an illuminated Garbo and illuminated Russian Orthodox icon (the Madonna of Kazan) is stunning. (It helps that Garbo and Novarro are both at their best in this sequence.) Sadly, another of Daniels' set piece effects -- Mata Hari and Rosanoff smoking in bed together where only the flames of the ciagerettes can be seen -- was cut on orders from the Hayes Office before the picture was rereleased in 1940 and is now lost.

The source print must be in excellent condition because the transfer was very strong. There is no commentary track.

If you come to this movie expecting art, you will be gravely disappointed (except, perhaps, for Daniels' contributions.) If you come to it expecting a diverting B-movie with A-level production values, then it will pass the time agreeably enough.

Film grade: C+

Garbo grade: B-

Novarro grade: No grade (The part is hopeless.)

Stone grade: A

Daniels grade: A

Adrian grade: C-

Share this post


Link to post