falderal : a moving images blog

Archive for the ‘1910s’ Category

Johanna Enlists ; 1918

Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Director: William Desmond Taylor
Actors: Mary Pickford, Anne Schaefer, Fred Huntley, Monte Blue, Douglas MacLean, Emory Johnson, John Steppling, Wallace Beery, Wesley Barry
Country: U.S.A.

Johanna Enlists is a cute film to watch and I enjoyed it very much but it was also a film that made me all too aware of the role women play in American society. It made me realize how little things have changed, despite the feminist revolution, from the 1910s until now.

In this movie, Mary Pickford plays Johanna, a country girl who is seen as ugly but she dreams of having a beau. After being upset after finding out that her crush is married with children, she prays to God to send her a beau… and Johanna ends up getting the American army. This leads to Johanna having crushes on a few men and she learns from magazines, newspapers, and books on how to be a lady. This leads to one of those transformations where the girl suddenly becomes hot after she does her hair differently and wears different clothes (similar to how current movies use glasses to make the girl ugly and the girl becomes attractive after she takes them off) and I was a bit surprised to see such a movie trope being used even back in the days. I loved how Pickford’s hair was used as the turning point for Johanna’s transformation because Pickford’s curls were so famous. I love seeing her hair having importance in her movies’ plots. I guess some things just don’t change. After Johanna makes a transformation, men become attracted to her and she has a slew of admirers with three in particular. This leads to a little trouble and in the end, Johanna gets a beau.

The ending is very old-fashioned for current viewers and despite being aware that things were different back in the days, I still find it a little weird when people use the explanation of, “We’re the same kind” to get the girl. Another movie example that I can think of at the top of my head is Ashley’s reason for getting married to Melanie in Gone with the Wind (1939).

Even though it is off-putting that a girl goes through so much trouble to get a guy, what I love about Pickford films is that she works with the system to get her way. In the paper that I wrote during my final semester in college, I wrote about how Pickford subverted society’s expectations of females, and I think that this movie is a perfect example of doing so. Sure, Johanna goes through a lot of trouble trying to get the guy (and I enjoyed her trying to change her looks and behaviour, especially dancing à la Isadora Duncan) but it is her scheming to get the men and the males in this movie are flat and are like toys controlled by Johanna. I love it when I see Pickford acting in a coquette-ish behaviour because it becomes another example as to how she wasn’t always portraying innocent characters and how wide her range was.

Another thing that I found highly enjoyable in this film were the effects used in regards to images + texts (ref. Picture 2). I always like seeing these in silent movies and these days, we don’t really see much of it outside of Quentin Tarantino’s films. I had a good chuckle when I saw “Solid Ivory” next to Pa Renssaller (Huntley). There are also some great intertitles in this film, which had me in stitches. A personal favourite was one that said, “Oh, Lordy — when I prayed for a man — WHY did you send me a thousand?”

Pickford was wonderful as an actress in this movie and I loved how there was nothing beneath her to get the desired comedic effect. One of my favourite moments was when she had a clothes pin on her nose because I couldn’t help but think that she was adorable (ref. Picture 3). After getting to know more about Pickford, I am surprised that she is known for playing “little girl roles” rather than being known as a comedienne. She’s wonderful in comedic and dramatic roles and it’s a shame that people aren’t giving her more credit for her acting talent.

I should really get going with a Pickford marathon as well. So many marathons to do and so little time (erm… patience, hahaha. Who am I fooling?)

IMDb Link: Johanna Enlists

Morality and the New Woman

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

Last semester was one that was both heaven and hell. I was taking classes that I enjoyed (for the most part) and the one that I was truly excited about was my independent study. My independent study was a research paper on Asta Nielsen and Mary Pickford and how both women portrayed the idea of the new woman overtly or subversively. Overall, I was pretty satisfied with my paper although I was worried about some of the holes I had in my argument, and the biggest hole is what I’m about to address.

I received my paper back from my professor and she brought up the same question that I had about my own paper: Is agency a good thing if one’s act is selfish and not moral?
I was using Nielsen’s film Hamlet as an example of how film portrayed a woman who embodied the idea of a new woman — the important part being what I considered to be a new woman. For me, the ideas of a new woman were ones tied to independence, intelligence, and worldliness, and the character of Gertrude was one that encapsulated all of them. Gertrude was just doing her thing throughout the whole film! She’d cheat on her husband, lie to her country, and kill her son/daughter and husband as a way to satisfy herself. In other words: she knew what she wanted and she’d do anything to get it.
To have such a character is refreshing because in cinema, many women are pushed around or are just “decorations” in a film (e.g. pretty girl being tied down onto a train track just to be saved, such as in Barney Oldfield’s Race for a Life, 1913) but It reminded me of something that I think I read awhile back (things are getting a bit murky in my head, I admit!) about how strong female characters in cinema are shown in somewhat an antagonistic light, for example, femme fatales.
Femme fatales are intriguing in that I personally find those characters to be absolutely amazing (They’re completely the opposite of me in character that I guess I want to live vicariously through them. But enough with the pseudo-Freudian analysis…) but it is true that people can see these characters as symbols of corruption. Instead of women being picturesque Victorian “ladies”, the shift in gender norms led to the creation of the vamp/femme fatale. Just think about what “vamp” means. Like a vampire, these women are ones that suck the life out of men and make them putty in their hands.

Coming back to Gertrude and my paper, I am honestly struggling with the notion of independence and morality in female characters in film. I don’t believe that one has the choose one or the other, heck, I used Mary Pickford as an example of a woman who used the patriarchal system to her advantage. But when it comes to independent women in early-1960s cinema, where and how do we (I?) draw the line?
Am I severely obscuring the term “new woman” to fit my own arguments? Probably.
Are there strong female characters in early cinema? Sure.
But how are these strong female characters shown? Usually with a flaw or something that appeals to the male audience to placate them.
At the top of my head, I can’t think of a woman who is good and strong. Katharine Hepburn in Holiday (1938) is the closest I can come to.
But then I wonder why is it so good to be good? Or am I on the verge of becoming amoral? And I wonder if I would be stuck with this big headache if these characters were male. Would I brush off their actions or would I be ruminating over this?

When I come up with some form of conclusion, it will be time for another blog post.

Den sorte drøm (The Black Dream) ; 1911

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Director: Urban Gad
Actors: Asta Nielsen, Valdemar Psilander, Gunnar Helsengreen
Country: Denmark

Another long-winded Steph post. If you can stand it, feel free to read it. You can skip on to the “Thoughts/Analysis” section if you don’t want much of the film to be spoiled.

Asta Nielsen plays a circus performer, Stella, who has two admirers: Waldberg (Valdemar Psilander) and Hirsch (Gunnar Helsengreen). Stella at first does not care about her admirers and probably just sees them as fans. When Waldberg follows her and he walks her to her apartment, Stella leaves him at the door. She realizes that she does like Waldberg and their romance starts when she lets him into her house. Hirsch is a wealthy jeweler who wants Stella for himself and in the beginning, she has no opinion about him and even eats at his table at a dinner party. Hirsch finds out about her relationship with Waldberg and tries to rape her (or so it seems) but Waldberg comes to save Stella. Hirsch challenges Waldberg to a cards duel and Stella tells Waldberg to not play. Nonetheless Waldberg plays cards and loses all his money and owes Hirsch a large sum. Waldberg becomes depressed and decides to commit suicide but Stella intervenes when she finds out that he has a gun and takes it away from him. Hirsch promises Stella jewelry and she uses this as a way to help Waldberg. She tells Waldberg that she has an expensive necklace that he could pawn and she goes off to meet Hirsch to get the necklace. Stella understands the implications of receiving Hirsch’s gift and instead of choosing an item, she steals a pearl necklace while Hirsch is looking away. But what Stella doesn’t know is that Hirsch sees her actions from a mirror. Hirsch lets Stella leave with the necklace but later confronts her after she gave the necklace to Waldberg and makes her promise to meet him at 12. Stella and Waldberg are later together in her dress room and Stella doesn’t tell Waldberg where she is going. When she leaves, he has a jealous fit and gets the gun Stella took from him. When he opens her purse, he sees the note about the 12:00 meeting and in a jealous rage, he goes to Hirsch’s house. Stella is obviously disgusted with Hirsch and tries to pull away from his advances. Right when Hirsch pushes Stella onto a couch and gets on top of her, Waldberg enters. After a small skirmish, Stella comes between them to make them stop and Waldberg shoots her. While dying, Stella gives him a note that explains why she is there and Waldberg regrets his actions. Stella dies in his arms after they kiss.

I did not expect much from this film because the other two Nielsen films were somewhat of a disappointment, but I actually enjoyed this film!
Maaike commented on one of my previous entries about Nielsen’s films and she brought up a great point.

Also something which I think might explain the… badness of those films, basically, is that not only did Asta’s films not really need to be good since they sold on star power alone, but also in the early 1910s it was rare for directors to really see their medium as an art form or to have any ambition in that direction. Obviously there were exceptions, but most directors considered it a job really, like I presume writers of crappy romance novels also don’t care about the quality of the entertainment they churn out.

It was an entertaining melodrama to watch and although it’s Despite being a film purely for entertainment, there were some moments when I thought Gad did something interesting. One is when he frames the scenes with curtains and I thought that it brought a voyeuristic feel to the scene and made the audience aware of where the camera was placed. Also, the use of the mirror to show what was truly happening was a great plot device and I wish that there was a motif in the film with mirrors, but there isn’t. I felt like this film had so much potential especially when I saw the curtain scene, but Gad has failed me. But then again, is it really necessary to create a film that is loaded with meaning and symbolism when the film was created for entertainment (hypothetically)? I wish I knew more about Gad because at the moment, I’m just getting this feeling that he made films for entertainment. Look at what film classes have done to me! I feel empty when there isn’t something to analyze and pick apart. There are probably many things to analyze, but I’m simply too lazy for that. I’m not into theorizing much either, so how about we all just leave this film as a melodrama and that’s that?
The acting in this film was incredibly naturalistic on every actor’s part. The only time they hammed it up was when it was necessary to show some action, such as a fight. The acting was so naturalistic that it just seemed like I was people watching, but when it came to facial expressions to portray emotions, Nielsen gets the prize. I was amazed at how much she could express just with her face (particularly her eyes) during the scene when she is at the jewel store and in her dying scene.
While watching this film, I made a small observation: indoor shots are most likely a set while all outdoor shots (except maybe the circus) are shot somewhere in Denmark. I think that Danish directors used their surroundings as much as they could and I really liked seeing the outdoors and what Denmark looked like back then. If all the outdoor shots are actually sets themselves, then I’m impressed! While the indoor shots clearly look like sets, none of the outdoor shots do, which leads me to think that they aren’t.
And of course, there is the obligatory “SLUT” intertitle at the end. I thought that there wasn’t going to be one, but right before I pressed my eject button, “SLUT” came on the screen. It really didn’t help that the term “slut” sort of did fit. Well, not really, but Stella was sacrificing herself for her lover.

I recommend this film for people who can stand melodramas, like Asta Nielsen, or have time on their hands. Other than that, I don’t think this film is anything spectacular or that you’ll be missing out on something if you don’t watch this. Although I have not watched Mod lyset yet, out of the three Danish silents I have watched so far with Nielsen, this one is the best.something that I would probably not think about much in the future.

IMDb Link: Den sorte drøm
Where to buy: Danish Film Institute Net Shop, Edition Filmmuseum

Balletdanserinden (The Ballet Dancer) ; 1911

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Director: August Blom
Actors: Valdemar Møller, Asta Nielsen, Johannes Poulsen, Valdemar Psilander
Country: Denmark

I am getting a bit skeptical of Danish silents, but I suppose I am being quick to judge since I’ve only watched two. I should look for early Carl Theodor Dreyer works and see if they are in a similar style as the ones I’m watching, but sadly Dreyer directed after the films I’m watching, so maybe his films won’t be a good way to compare.
Anyway, Balletdanserinden, I found out, is directed by a famous director during the Danish golden age in cinema, and despite all this, I was disappointed. I wasn’t disappointed in the sense that I was with Ball of Fire, but this film felt so trivial and that it was a film that wasn’t worth my time. That was a bit harsh and maybe I do take that back, but this film was something that one could POSSIBLY call cute (seeing Asta Nielsen in a tutu of sorts was adorable [ref. Picture 1]), maybe this film can be called a (melo)drama, and well, in the end I was like, “Well now! That’s that?!”

The music ended abruptly and so did the scene, and it completely did not help that Nielsen’s character, Camille, is looking at her old boyfriend Jean (portrayed by Johannes Poulsen)with longing eyes and then she sees her new (?!) boyfriend and then they are in a passionate embrace and then the intertitle “SLUT” comes up and ends all the music and the scene. Being a typical college student and being immature, I can’t help but laugh every time I think about that scene and then the “SLUT”. I guess that I will be a terrible student once I learn Danish and go to Denmark to watch Nielsen’s films.
Ok, I’m digressing, but the whole film was rather confusing. Camille falls in love with Jean and Jean supposedly loves only her yet he cheats on her with Mrs. Simon (who I assume is a very wealthy woman). Mr. Simon finds out about his cheating wife and is about to beat her with a whip (you go Mr. Simon!) *ahem* when Mrs. Simon, I assume, says that she’ll stop and all is forgiven. Alas, Mrs. Simon can’t help her urges and Camille finds out that Jean is still cheating on her with Mrs. Simon, thus Camille, in a fit of jealousy, tells Mr. Simon about everything and when Mr. Simon decides to either kill Jean or Mrs. Simon (it’s a bit unclear), Camille regrets telling Mr. Simon about the whole affair and finds Jean and Mrs. Simon, who are not-so surprisingly together, and warns them about Mr. Simon. Camille exchange clothes with Mrs. Simon so that when Mr. Simon sees Camille walk out of the house with Jean in Mrs. Simon’s clothes, he’ll think that he caught her in the act, but it’s really another woman. Camille covers her face with a veil so that her identity is not discovered by Mr. Simon. Mrs. Simon walks out when her husband is still outside and when Mr. Simon sees his wife, he chases her and kills her with a gun. When Camille finds out about this, she becomes ill, but her friend, Paul (Valdemar Psilander) takes her away to his house (sound familiar? Reference Afgrunden) and all is good since Camille gets along with his parents. The final scene confused me at first because the two male characters looked the same, but I figured it all out thanks to the BFI website. Camille is alone when she sees Jean. Jean is glad to see her and he kisses her hand when Paul sees them, but Camille all too easily leaves Jean for Paul and the film ends.

Nielsen’s performance was below-par and I thought she over-acted in some parts. I felt as if she was nothing special especially since the other actors were pretty naturalistic. The death scene with Mrs. Simon wasn’t as bad as the one in Afgrunden and overall, nothing too spectacular in the acting department.

I adored the clothes and Nielsen had THE BEST HAT EVER! That is why I screencapped it for you. Also, I screencapped the room so that you can see the beautiful furnishings yet there is the flimsy door with the painted on decoration like the one I described in Afgrunden. I am still upset with Nielsen’s performance because I felt as if she got worse in comparision to her performance in Afgrunden, which I thought was pretty good. She acted more with her body than with her eyes and face, which is probably why I am thinking this, but still, it was disappointing. And that last scene! Really! There wasn’t even a moment when Camille thought for a second before she made a choice with which man she’ll be with, but she just went from one guy to another.

Maaike commented on my other Nielsen related post saying

I’m really curious to see the film now, though what you’ve written pretty much corresponds with the other Gad films that I’ve seen, in that he is basically a crummy director who chooses stories that are kind of odd and where you can’t really tell whether there’s supposed to be a ‘message’ or not, and whose only saving grace is basically that he employed Asta and let her do whatever she wanted.

and her thoughts on Gad films reflect this film as well. Sure it’s not directed by Gad, but I didn’t think Blom was anything special and there didn’t seem to be much of a difference between the the style of Gad or Blom. I was happy that it shows Camille in a positive light since she got over her jealously and “for the sake of love” (I think that is what the intertitle said. How corny.), she tried to save Mrs. Simon and Jean and she stayed with the nicer guy. After watching one too many Korean soap operas, I do get skeptical over situations when women have to choose between the nice guy and the jerk because they always pick the jerk, but this film didn’t disappoint me in that aspect.

IMDb link: Balletdanserinden
Where to buy: Danish Film Institute Net Shop, Edition Filmmuseum

Afgrunden (The Abyss) ; 1910

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Director: Urban Gad
Actors: Asta Nielsen, Robert Dinesen, Poul Reumert
Country: Denmark

Disclaimer: After reading Neko’s post on W., I was completely blown away by how beautifully it was written and how well she laid out her points. Sorry that my post won’t be like hers, but instead, you’ll get the usual Stephany-like post with the lost-winded falderal, synopsis, thoughts, whatever. I am sorry in advance for the rather long post.

The story is of Magda (Asta Nielsen), who is a piano teacher and meets her fiancé, Knud (Robert Dinesen), on a trolley. Knud instantly falls in love with Magda when she steps onto the trolley and when she gets off, he follows her to a little café. They both fall in love and later on when Magda is teaching a little girl, she gets a letter from Knud that him and his parents would love to have her come to his house during summer. Magda is excited and finishes the lesson early and responds to his letter enthusiastically. At the summer home, Magda is seen as a quiet type of girl, preferring to read a book rather than go on a walk/go out with her fiancé and his family, and finally she is persuaded to at least walk with him to the gate entrance of the house. After she waves him goodbye, she sees a circus and she immediately becomes intrigued and is handed a flier. When Knud comes back, she tells him that she wants to go, but Knud brushes it off and does not want to go, but in the end, he agrees to take her to the circus. After the circus, Magda wants to see the animals and the reluctant Knud follows her and Magda wants to learn a dance she saw. One of the circus ladies teaches her the steps and one of the male performers, Rudolf (Poul Reumert), becomes attracted to Magda right away. When he tries to talk to her, Knud takes Magda away, but Rudolf follows Magda and Knud all the way to their house, possibly in hopes of recruiting her. Knud and Rudolf get into a fight and in the end, Knud and Magda just go into the house with Rudolf being angry outside. Later when Magda is in her room, alone, Rudolf sneaks into her room through the window and while Magda is surprised, they kiss after he stifles her screams. Magda runs away with him and leaves a note for Knud, telling him that she has run away with the love of her life and that Knud should forget her. Then we see Magda as an unhappy woman and Rudolf giving his attention to other women. Magda is jealous and whenever she throws a fit, Rudolf puts her in place. By coincidence, Knud finds the unhappy Magda and they decide to be together, but when Magda packs and is about to leave, Rudolf finds her and charms her again. While they are embracing, Knud walks in and then leaves, knowing that Magda won’t leave Rudolf. Then it goes to a scene where the circus troupe is performing and Magda and Rudolf do a sensual act with them as cowboys (I think) and Magda performs a highly sensual dance. It is well received by the audience, but when they go back to the wings, Rudolf goes straight for one of the other female performers and flirts. Magda is jealous and tries to come between Rudolf and the other female performer, but Rudolf pushes her away and isn’t ashamed of his actions and goes on flirting. When the girl goes on stage and performs her cancan-like routine, Magda cannot control her jealously and lashes at the girl with a stick. Rudolf and Magda are fired and eventually Magda finds a job as a piano player at an outdoor café. When her and Rudolf come to the café, she doesn’t want to work, but he forces her to play the piano while he is smoking with some buddies. By coincidence (again), Knud also comes to the café and sees Magda performing. He leaves a note with the waiter saying that “a friend” wants to meet her. When she gets the note, she is reluctant to go and is dragged by her husband to go into the private room to meet the “friend”. When she sees Knud, she is shocked and looks upset to see him, and when he talks to her, she cries. When her husband eventually walks in, he recognizes Knud and a fight ensues, and Magda pushes Knud out of the room and fights with Rudolf. Rudolf pushes her and pulls her hair and in desperation, she gets a knife and stabs him. Rudolf dies and Magda is upset and cries over his body. She won’t let go and when Knud sees what happens, he leaves. The film ends with Magda being taken away by the police and Knud being by himself.

I was really excited to see one of Asta Nielsen’s first films, and at that, it was my first Danish silent! Was I disappointed? Not really. It was worth a watch, but I have to say that the film was nothing special. I’m not sure if I’ve actually watched a film created earlier than this one or around this time, so it is hard for me to put this film in perspective in relation to what was going on at the time in Denmark and in cinema. Maybe some cinematic techniques were new, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t any. There were many long shots (typical of older films) and I couldn’t find anything that was innovative. On top of that, it was Urban Gad’s first film, thus as an “amateur”, I wouldn’t/don’t expect much.
In my Weimar cinema class, I learned that the lack of funds led to creative sets using unconventional materials, such as the use of canvases for Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, and while the sets weren’t made of canvases for Afgrunden, it was quite obvious in some scenes that a set was built using as little materials as possible. I’m not sure about the economy in pre-war Denmark (and of course its economy wouldn’t be as terrible as post-WWI Germany), but I highly doubt that Gad would have gotten much funding for his first film. The flimsy walls of the private room are noticeable, and the doors are thin with painted on decoration to make it look as if it had some carvings. Despite the almost cheap looking sets indoors (the furnishings were nice though), the outdoor shots were rather beautiful.
The acting was incredibly realistic and the only time over-acting was seen was when Rudolf dies. I was so amused by Reumert’s exaggerated acting that I almost giggled until Asta ran and hugged his body, in which it made me a bit sad. He grabs his chest, twirls around, and sticks his leg out before he falls. It was almost cartoony, in my honest opinion. Nielsen is known for her subtle acting, such as a look telling it all, and I can definitely see the beginnings of this in Afgrunden; when she does the sensual dance; that look on her face is more erotic than her gyrating hips.
While on the topic of the “famous” sensual/erotic dance, what I noticed to be a bit odd was that the audience is on the right of the frame, yet it seems as if both the actors acknowledge the camera as if it was the audience and not the people who are not seen on the right.
It was fun to see clothes pre-1920s and the hats were FABULOUS. Asta’s clothes were beautiful as well and she looks great with a corseted waist and a long dress. Another fun thing for me to see was when she would dry the ink on letters by pressing them against some block. Since these are things that I’ve never seen (not the corseted waist, but Asta in such a dress and the ink blotter), it was all very exciting for me.
Now stepping away from the superficial aspect of this film, at first, I wasn’t even sure what I thought. It took a second for me to take it all in, and the “SLUT” intertitle at the end of the film made me confused. I was thinking, “WHAT?! Magda’s a slut?! What kind of intertitle is this? This beats Die freudlose Gasse‘s intertitle with ‘Orgy.’!” It was so odd and didn’t seem to fit with the story that I used a Danish online translator and found out it meant “Finished”, which made sense. So after I got over that confusion, I saw this film as a tale of a simple woman who has her emotions unleashed, which leads her to her ruin. Although the film starts all happy with Knud and Magda, with the intertitle to fit them “Young hearts”, everything seems all lovey-dovey and nice. But at the same time, the intertitle is like a foreshadow, implying (this is COMPLETELY my interpretation by the way so I’m not getting this from any scholarly material so take it with a grain of salt) that the relationship is like the one of young people: fleeting. The intertitle can mean that the scene is of two young people meeting and falling in love, but as the rest of the film shows, Magda’s love for Knud pretty much ends. Magda cannot exactly be called a rational woman, but she was probably a normal woman of the times, but she is also easily excited, as the viewer can see with her reaction to the invitation to her fiancé’s home. At the fiancé’s home, I saw it as a way for the viewer to see how mismatched the couple was. Magda wants to read but her fiancé wants to go for a walk; Magda wants to go to the circus and Knud goes unwillingly; Magda is interested in the circus dance and Knud is a tad disapproving of it. It already sets up for what is to happen and Rudolf sweeps her off her feet when he comes in through her window. Knud is the complete opposite of Rudolf: he is steadfast and is a “moral” person.
In the beginning of the film, Magda is seen only wearing corseted dresses, and although she is seen wearing corseted dresses later on as well, Magda’s emotions are completely released when she does her sensual dance and her non-corseted dress reflects this. She is letting go of everything and in that very scene, she also unleashes her emotions when she lashes out at the other female performer. Perhaps this can mean that a woman’s sensuality and emotions leads to a decline in character, a moral downfall, but while this is what the viewer may first think, it is also important to remember that Rudolf is a philanderer. I would be jealous and angry too if I saw my lover flirting with every other woman. I read on IMDb that eventually Magda goes into prostitution, but I did not interpret the last sequence like that at all. To me, I saw it as Magda being the breadwinner and she is forced to work by her boyfriend while he just chats with his friends. I can also see the prostitute argument because Magda does not want to see the “friend” in the private room and her boyfriend drags her there, which can imply that he is willing to sell his girlfriend’s body for money. It can go both ways and since I have not read anything about Afgrunden, I am not sure what Gad’s original intention was. In the end, Magda kills Rudolf and although this might add to the whole “SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WOMAN IS NOT RIGHTEOUS!” argument, it was completely out of self-defense, and I hope that contemporary audience sided with Magda. She doesn’t deserve to get arrested at all, but she is taken away by the police.
Knud is uneasy by what has happened and walks in and out of the room and out of the building. I interpreted his action of walking out of the room as him realizing that he could never have Magda. In the last shot, he looks at Magda and tries to reach out to her, but she is in a trance-like state and does not acknowledge him and with glazed eyes, she is led away from the building by the police. This final scene reaffirms his severed ties with Magda as she does not even look at him and perhaps he realizes that their relationship is over since he only reaches out, but never directly approaches her. Even through physical space there is a separation between the two characters.

So what is this film trying to say? Well, I don’t know. Is it a moral story? Maybe. Is it a tragic love story? Maybe. I’m not sure about the “message” of the film, but all I can do is speculate about what the scenes mean. For now, I see it as a story of a woman who goes with her passions that leads to her “downfall” (financially and emotionally). I would rather prefer not to attach any moral judgment on Magda, because is it a sin to run away with a man? To be angry at him for being a flirt? I don’t think so. I don’t see Magda as a bad person and is more upset with her staying with Rudolf. But there is no explanations for a person’s feelings, especially when it comes to “love” (or so I believe) and even though Magda may know that Knud is better for her, she still loves Rudolf nonetheless.

IMDb link: Afgrunden
Where to buy: Danish Film Institute Net Shop, Edition Filmmuseum