by Allan Fish
(Germany 1929 132m) DVD1/2
Aka. Der Büchse der Pandora
Don’t bring Lulu
p George C.Horzetzky, Seymour Nebenzahl d Georg W.Pabst w Ladislaus Vajda, George W.Pabst plays “Erdegeist” and “Pandora’s Box” by Franz Wedekind ph Günther Krampf ed Joseph R.Flieser m Peer Ruben art Andrei Andreiev cos Göttlieb Hesch
Louise Brooks (Lulu), Fritz Kortner (Dr Peter Schorn), Franz Lederer (Alwa Schorn), Gustav Diessl (Jack the Ripper), Carl Gotz (Schigolch), Alice Roberts (Countess Anna Geschwitz), Daisy D’Ora (Marie de Zarniko), Krafft Raschig (Roderigo Quast), Michael Von Newlinsky (Marquis Casti-Piani), Sig Arno (Stage manager),
Okay, so the tagline is unoriginal, but it’s so apt for this piece. You may not want to bring this Lulu, but you’re intoxicated with her. In all her films in Hollywood Louise Brooks seemed restrained, reserved and even, perish the thought, uninteresting. Yet German director Pabst saw enough in her performance in Beggars of Life to warrant bringing her over from Hollywood to star in his long cherished adaptation of Wedekind’s deliciously melodramatic and seedy Lulu plays. If her performance in the later Diary of a Lost Girl is probably stronger, that film doesn’t remotely resemble what it was originally. Pandora’s Box, after painstaking restoration, does. Furthermore, her appearance transcends mere performance, entering that too rarely glimpsed world of being. She is a force of nature; a force of sexy, immoral, sluttish nature, but a force of nature nonetheless. She is of course doomed, and Brooks never escaped the role for the rest of her career, but her place in cinema history and in immortality was beyond secure.
Mistress of a rich man, Lulu is first seen being visited in her swanky flat by her friend Schigolch, only for her lover Schön to return home to tell her he’s getting married. He finds Schigolch waiting and is shocked to learn that he was her original sugar daddy. He leaves in disgust but, unbeknownst to him, his son, Alwa, is infatuated with Lulu and is writing a musical part specifically for her. When his father comes to the first night and Lulu sees him, she refuses to perform. Schön persuades her to go on, is caught by his fiancée and decides to marry Lulu instead. When Lulu entertains her immoral friends on the wedding day, he grows insanely jealous and, discovering his son’s head in her lap, asks her to kill herself. When Schön is shot instead, Lulu is up for murder, but contrives to escape with Schigolch and Alwa to a boat out of the country. Caught cheating at cards, they escape again to London, where they live off Lulu’s livings as a prostitute. But on Christmas Eve, Lulu brings a strange man back to her flat…
The man is often described as being Jack the Ripper, but this really cannot be, with Jack having been going about his business in 1888, the period of Wedekind’s plays but not Pabst’s film. Yet somehow it works, Jack himself has become a gruesome image of the darkened foggy streets of London and Lulu herself, like Pandora, is the embodiment of seduction and the lure of the erotic for all time. When Jack finally uses her bread knife to kill Lulu and disappear into the foggy gloom, he’s going off to his date with immortality that Lulu has already achieved. As the prosecuting attorney says when trying to convict Lulu of Schön’s murder, “the Greek Gods created a woman; Pandora. She was beautiful, charming, versed in the art of flattery.” Lulu can only smile back in a vain attempt to seduce him from the witness box. She uses sex and knows no other.
Pabst had made some fascinating films prior to his masterpiece and would go on to make others. The dangerous allure of sexual obsession is a theme that runs through many of these films and in Pandora’s Box more so than any other. Though the photography, sets and costumes are indelible, this wouldn’t have been possible without Brooks, whose Lulu influenced everyone from Bardot in Godard’s Le Mépris to Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction. Yet there is only one black bob and always will be. It has never and will never be remade, because no-one can touch her.
I learn a lot here about film, and appreciate reading the reviews.
Never heard of her, or the director.
This is the next best thing to taking a film class.
“This is the next best thing to taking a film class.”
Aye, Michael, and that’s quite the ultimate comment here for Allan’s silent countdown, which has served as an instructional cinematic tool for those wanting to venture full-force into the silent film experience. Speaking with Allan on the phone, Allan confirmed that this was precisely his intention, knowing full well beforehand that this would be the one area many have not yet investigated beyond a smattering of films. As it turns out Michael, you have been one of this particular poll’s most ardent supporters and have even seen more than a fair amount of the entries.
Your comments are exceedingly appreciated, and in behalf of Allan I thank you!
Indeed, Sam, that was the intention, now go and seek it out, CM< you won't be disappointed.
Coffee, you are in for a treat. One of the great moments in my cine-journey was the first time I saw this film. It was on TCM, and I’d heard of it & Louise Brooks but was not prepared for her appearance in the movie. You’ll see what I mean – never have I experienced such unfettered star power, blasting forth from the screen. Man, she had It, in spades.
Aye Joel, I second your glee here!
Louise Brooks is one of my favorite actresses so easily I love this film (and Pabst was obviously a master).
Just curious what are the collective takes of some of Louise’s other films? Allen briefly mentions ‘Beggars of Life’ and we’ve already seen his review of ‘Diary of a Lost Girl’. I happen to think ‘Beggars of Life’ is vastly underrated, as is ‘Prix de Beaute (Miss Europe)’. I also think ‘The Canary Murder Case’ is pretty damn watchable… and I like ‘The Show Off’ for the glimpse at such a young Louise.
For me ‘Prix de Beaute’ and ‘Beggars’ are the Louise films I return to over and over again (I know this seems blasphemous to Pabst). The offer such a modern take of feminine theory to me.
Aye, Jamie this idealistic, naturalistic beauty is one of my favorite thespians of all-time as well, but I’m afraid there isn’t much more than what you aastutely listed here. I favor the two Pabst films and BEGGARS OF LIFE among her meagre output, but I also like PRIX and THE SHOW-OFF quite a bit. Brooks hated Hollywood, and refused to accept an offer to play the female lead in Wellman’s THE PUBLIC ENEMY, though she always had a fondness for the great director. She was purportedly a massive spend thrift in her life, and was always known to help the needy. She’s an icon.
As it turns out Jamie, I can thank Wellman expert extraordinaire Judy in the U.K. for motivating me just a few months ago with ordering a copy of BEGGARS, which I didn’t actually get to see until recently. I’d like to draw your attention to her review, published at Movie Classics back in December, where she again gives this film, it’s star and it’s director typically superlative treatment. Judy has been mowing her way through Wellman’s early career as of late:
http://movieclassics.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/beggars-of-life-1928/
How is your copy of ‘Beggars’? I don’t have one, and have heard mixed things about the copies out there. I’ve read the Eastman House in NY released a pretty new print for a small run in 2008 so there was hope it would be put on DVD but so far no luck.
thanks for the link as well I can’t wait to read this.
Jamie, it’s not so hot, unfortunately, but it was the only way I could see the film, unfortunately, it’s rather washed out and indescript. I also have my fingers crossed for a legitimate release!
Judy’s review is great.
I would rate this one of the colossal films of this era. PERIOD. The smoldering sexuality wrapped in fantasy is punctuated brilliantly by Pabst’s finite camera work and his loving capture of every inch of Louise Brooks who, in my opinion, stands tall in her turn with the likes of Faconetti in THE PASSION and Gish in THE WIND. Its a sorry state that her name is lost with most of today’s generation. Movie-goers who never delve into this period are missing out on so much as Brookes was one-of-a-kind. As for this essay, I have to say this might be one of my favorites by Allan. The synopsis is quick and tight and seques beautifully into the author’s assessment and obvious love for the film. I’ve noticed passion in some of Allan’s capsules before, but I don’t think its ever come out quite as obvious and as attractive as thism Then again, this is No. 11 in his count. I’d venture the passion is really gonna overflow over the next 10 days. Great write-up Allan!!!!!!
AS FOR THE COUNT… I’m prety sure I’ve already figured out a good portion of the top 10. I’m almost positive as to the film that will take number 1. Wondering though, Allan… Is it possible that 2 directors will take 2 slots each in the top 10. If my thinking is correct, then I’m sure you’ll answer in the affirmative. I can’t wait to see how this turns out. This has been one of the best counts, easily a favorite for me as I initially thought it would be a bore. However, the education that came from this, as well as being introduced to films I knew NOTHING about, made this one a real pleasure. I think Schmulee will agree with me as well on this sentiment. Its been an illuminating ride!!!!
Well, Dennis, I aint going to answer here, but feel free to send your guesses by email.
Not to quibble here (but hey it may lead to discussion), but a Louise Brooks documentary out there ‘Looking for Lulu’ (that can be rented on netflix) claims that it was her turn in the Howard Hawks’ directed ‘A Girl in Every Port’ that originally caught Pabst’s eye for the Lulu part.
I have not seen the Hawks film so I can’t speak about it that much other then that.