| Director(s) | Robert Wiene |
| Principal Cast | Werner Krauss as Dr. Caligari Conrad Veidt as Cesare Friedrich Fehér as Francis Lil Dagover as Jane Hans Heinz v. Twardowski as Alan |
| Release Date | 1920 |
| Language(s) | Silent |
| Running Time | 67 minutes |
Jagged structures. Paths that go down when they appear to go up. Unnatural shadows painted along surfaces to confuse perception. The constant use of close-ups and iris shots to reinforce that every scene is a certain point of view. Wiene’s seminal work of German Expressionism, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a tale that makes use of every method possible to reinforce the nature of subjectivity – the underlying deception hidden beneath the truth of everyday beliefs. From the masterful mise-en-scene to the way scenes transition to one anther, the story constantly reminds us that no character should be trusted as an arbiter of the truth, but rather as merely a malleable perspective on it.
The story starts off with a young man, Francis, talking to an elderly gentlemen about the madness he and his fiancé, Jane, faced at the hands of the nefarious Dr. Caligari. From the start of the movie, it’s made apparent this is a story, a certain point of view about a collection of events. This is a framing device done right, as the camera moves from the “normal” world to the crooked and sharp shadow world of Francis’s past, a reflection that this is a story told from a certain perspective.
This tale opens on a fair happening in the jagged city, a fair that a certain Dr. Caligari has come to in hopes of exhibiting a somnambulist (sleepwalker) to the public. As an excited crowd draws near to his tent, he opens up his titular cabinet and presents Cesare, a man who he claims has been sleeping since for the past 23 years, the moment of his birth. Dr. Caligari invites the crowd to ask Cesare questions, assuring them that the eternal sleeper can answer their inquiries without fail. Without missing a beat, Francis’s friend, Alan, asks, “When will I die?” Cesare, responds with an intense ferocity in his eyes, “At dawn”. Obviously perturbed at the ominous pronouncement, Alan and Francis leave Caligari’s tent with the former trying to comfort the latter. As they walk through the distorted cityscape, they run into Jane whose bright smile livens the both of them up. Unfortunately, all good things have to come to an end as dawn slowly approaches and Alan is woken by a unseen figure ready to impale him with a knife. The gruesome power struggle is not shown directly, but is rather displayed on the wall through the shadows of the two fighting one another. The depiction of the murder in this way conceals the identity of the true assailant, but also calls into question real purpose behind the murder. Shadows can be deceptive and in a city that has painted shadows everywhere to reinforce the idea that truth can be hidden and obfuscated, a battle between shadows can also be read as a battle between selves , between a hidden truth that refuses to let itself be seen.
Upset at his friends untimely demise and concerned with the accuracy of Cesare’s prediction, Francis attempts to investigate Caligari and his so called sleepwalker. Unfortunately for him a stream of new revelations, deceptive appearances, and rampant uncertainties plague his journey to find the truth. People attempt to take advantage of the violence to plan their own nefarious schemes. Others maintain appearances to convince Francis that what he thinks he sees is not really what he’s seeing at all. All the while, the killer continues on their path, acting like a murder machine hellbent on fulfilling some agenda. As their identity is eventually revealed and a true chase starts to get to the bottom of the mystery, the threads of the story become even more refracted, breaking under constant reinterpretation by the principle characters. The city’s architecture shines through in these moments, as at one point the killer kidnaps Jane instead of killing her and leads the town on a wild goose chase. As it looks like the killer is going up stairs, it’s revealed that the stairs actually go down instead. A perceptual snafu that reinforces the idea that nothing is what it appears to be, even the killer themselves when their identity is finally discovered.
During this entire narration, the movie constantly uses closeups of characters along with iris lens shots to highlight that certain actions and interpretations stem from a subjectivity. Multiple scenes open up with only a minute portion of the scene being show, revealing a certain picture, that then becomes more clear as the entire scene comes into view. The repetition of this along with the clear close-ups constantly leads us to reconsider who’s story we’re following along and why exactly they’re telling it the way they are.
The acting on display lets this dialectic play out to its full potential, as each actor conveys a plethora of discernible emotions through their faces and body language. Krauss’s Caligari is absolutely revolting in certain scenes, giving a sneer and sense of malice that absolutely leaps off the screen and gives reason to question him constantly. Meanwhile Veidt somehow gives a convincing portrayal of a man who’s constantly asleep, whose personality is completely kept under a kind of ideological mask that overpowers the subjectivity within. Dagover makes Jane seem serene and playful at first but quickly transforms into someone experiencing a genuine emotional devastation when she learns of Alan’s untimely demise. Finally, Fehér, the leading man, goes through the whole gamut of human emotion – cheerful with his friends, devastated upon the loss of one, desperate to figure out the reason behind the suffering, eager to bring those responsible down, and so on.
This may be a silent movie, but it feels so radical in so many ways that you can’t help but fall in love with what the piece manages to accomplish, both from a narrative and technical perspective. This is a story from the 1920’s that somehow manages to tell a tale of subjectivity in every way possible from the use of a framing device to the depth of the actors emotional conflicts. The city’s construction is iconic (and ever present in the aesthetic design of so many movies even now) and makes you appreciate just how much work and artistic vision went into creating the pointed and imprecise architecture. The buildings and streets genuinely feel like they’re alive, as the camera utilizes constant movement in the background and foreground along with the scenery to create an illusion of depth and (un)reality. At one point, Caligari is literally bombarded with words that appear on the screen all around him as though they’re real entities threatening to destroy his world. It’s a truly spectacular sight to see that’ll make you question how Wiene managed to achieve all of this almost a century ago.
If you’re someone who’s not sold on watching silent movies give this one a shot. At under 90 minutes, it’s not a huge time investment compared to the possible upside. The sumptuous visual feast will give you more than enough to admire, while the multilayered plot and brilliant use of point of view will give you more than enough to think about. Who knows? You might find your perspective shifting.
REPORT CARD
| TLDR | One doesn’t have to look far to see the influence of Weine’s seminal masterwork, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. From the pronounced use of shadows to the highly stylized cityscape this is a movie that defined the aesthetics for genres to come. It’s an absolute masterclass in mise-en-scene and the way the narrative constantly upends itself and reinforces that everything is just an interpretation from a certain point of view is truly poetic. This is a movie that takes subjectivity and ideology seriously and reinforces those ideas in every way from the formal construction of the movie to the story itself. I know silent films aren’t the most popular, but if you have 67 minutes to spare this one might change your perspective. |
| Rating | 10/10 |
| Grade | A+ |
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report
