Watch Michael For Free

the audience applauded

Absolutely Fantastic

A lot of fun.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Famous painter Claude Zoret (Benjamin Christensen) is in love with friend, muse, and model Michael (Walter Slezak). They live comfortably and happily in their mansion, which is littered with Zoret's pieces with Michael as their inspiration. When the bankrupt Countess Lucia Zamikoff (Nora Gregor) comes to visit to ask Zoret to paint her, Zoret accepts but struggles to put any life into his painting. He can't depict her eyes, but Michael steps in and completes the painting. Sensing his infatuation with her, the Countess seduces Michael, and Zoret witnesses his relationship become more and more distant. Michael steals and sells Zoret's sketches and paintings in order to satisfy the Countess' spending habits, and Zoret eventually falls ill.Although it's hardly tackled explicitly, and more suggested in looks, exchanges, and title-cards than sexual imagery, Michael's tackling of homosexuality was quite revolutionary in its day. Naturally, it failed financially and critically (although when Dreyer made The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) and became auteur, it has since been re-visited and praised), but it should be a film that any cinephile should see, especially those with an interest in the origins of Queer Cinema and the depiction of homosexuality in film. Benjamin Christensen, perhaps best known as director of the silent docu-horror masterpiece Haxan (1922), is masterful as Zoret, his face darkened with sadness, subtle jealousy, and tragic sentiment. Slazek and Gregor fair less well, and suffer in comparison to Christensen's depiction. Although the climax is predictable, it has a feeling of inevitably which makes it fittingly moving and quite beautiful, similar in many ways to the ending of Dreyer's Ordet (1955). But the film is surprisingly rich and luscious, with Dreyer's usual blank canvas and bleak settings replaced by detailed sets, all captured by cinematographer's Rudolph Mate and Karl Freund (who appears here as art dealer Le Blanc, and would go on to work on some Universal's finest horror output in the 1930's). A wonderful, 'minor' work in Dreyer's wealthy filmography.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

A famous painter named Claude Zoret (Benjamin Christensen) falls in love with one of his models, Michael (Walter Slezak), and for a time the two live happily as partners. Zoret is considerably older than Michael, and as they age, Michael begins to drift from him, although Zoret is completely blind to this.Directed by the great Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer, who went on to direct "The Passion of Joan of Arc", called by some "the most influential film of all time". Written by Dreyer, and Thea von Harbou, who is now probably best known as Fritz Lang's wife. Produced by Erich Pommer, which cinematography by Karl Freund. As far as 1920s German cinema goes, this is top drawer.Along with "Different From the Others" (1919) and "Sex in Chains" (1928), "Michael" is widely considered a landmark in gay silent cinema. It has also been suggested that the film reflects personal feelings harbored by Dreyer after a purported homosexual affair, though I have no evidence of that.This film was pretty great, despite being silent and foreign. Those factors took nothing away from the experience for me, and I have to give credit to Dreyer and the cast -- the film is full of very intense faces, which made up for the lack of any audible emotion.What drew me to this film was having cameraman Karl Freund on camera. A genius behind it, this is a rare treat to see the man in front and caught on film. His role is fairly small, but captures his movements and body language in a way that no photograph ever could. To my knowledge, this was his last acting role in a film.The film has been cited to have influenced several directors. Alfred Hitchcock drew upon motifs from "Michael" for his script for "The Blackguard" (1925).

Strange as it may seem, as a huge horror movie fan I couldn't pass up watching this silent drama, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with horror. For starters, it was directed by Carl Th. Dreyer, who is possibly most famous for THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) but also made the genre classics VAMPYR (1932) and VREDENS DAG (1943). Even though this was filmed in Germany during a time of heavy government control of film output, Dreyer managed to secure full artistic control over this particular production. It stars Benjamin Christensen, who directed HAXAN (1921), one of the strangest and most bizarre and most innovative of all horror movies, silent era or not. The interiors were shot by Karl Freund, who later directed the horror classics THE MUMMY (1932) and MAD LOVE (1935) at Universal and would win two Oscars during his long and distinguished career. Freud also makes his first and only on-screen appearance here, playing an art dealer in a single scene. Exteriors were shot by Rudolph Maté, a five-time Oscar nominee who also directed the science fiction classic WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE in 1951. The basis for the film was Herman Bang's novel "Mikaël," which was adapted by the director and Thea von Harbou; the latter being well known for her collaborations with then-husband Fritz Lang. Her writing credits include METROPOLIS (1927), M (1931) and a whole series of "Dr. Mabuse" films. So from top to bottom, a bunch of very talented and influential filmmakers and production people worked on this particular film. The line-up of talent itself should appeal to a wide range of classic film fans and not just horror buffs like myself. The content also secures this film an audience, even today, as it's one of the first films to ever deal with homosexuality in a mature way. In fact, I really can't recall a film made prior to this one to include such content. For 1924, it must have been a very bold and courageous project for these people to take on.The main character in MICHAEL isn't really Michael himself, but an established, older artist by the name of Claude Zulot (played very well by Christensen). Over the years, Claude has become a wealthy and acclaimed painter specializing in human portraits. When approached by the youthful, almost angelic-looking artist Michael (Walter Slezak), Claude tells him his own sketches need some work but he'll let him become his "muse" and model. Five years later the men are still working - and living - together, but their relationship crumbles once an attractive destitute countess (Nora Gregor) stumbles onto the scene. Michael starts seeing more of her and less of Claude, at first behind Claude's back but eventually with little regard for his feelings. Before long, Michael abandons his mentor for the countess and moves out of the home, but continues to pop in from time to time to see Claude. Those visits usually end in Michael needing financial assistance, whether it be willingly offered to him or stolen. Though the relationship between the men is played off as an "adopted son" type thing to the public, it's obvious there's much more going on beneath the surface. This is evidenced by scenes of Claude's loneliness and agony over his abandonment, the sense of betrayal, a scene where the countess discovers a love letter and many other subtle moments. Adding another dimension to the story is the presence of a journalist named Charles (Robert Garrison), whose unwavering care and support for Claude hints at the kind of unrequited romantic love Claude unwisely tried to find with Michael. The people who truly care for and love you will be willing to put up with your hangups. The people who truly care for and love you will be with you at the end. Interestingly, on the sidelines, there's a contrasted love triangle between a man, his wife and a young duke she's having an affair with, almost as if to say, "Hey, we ALL have the same feelings, the same relationship problems and go through the same exact things whether we're male or female, gay or straight." Seems simple enough, but it took a lot of courage to put this message on the screen back in 1924. Unfortunately, the whole moral crusade and censorship took hold soon after this was made in much of the world and gay characters weren't tolerated in mainstream cinema unless they were comically exaggerated or hidden behind so much metaphor and subtext you'd need a decoder to spot them. While the content here is subtle by conventional standards, the movie does not shy away from it. Homosexuality is portrayed through adoring looks, touching (the hair, the shoulders, the arms) and holding hands, as well as through emotional reactions to the various events going on. The movie is extremely well made for its time, both in technical terms and in terms of content. The acting from the principals is very, very good and the insight into relationships are relatable to basically anyone who has ever been in one.

This is an early film on a homosexual theme: older painter, and younger, prettier model and developing artist. This happens to have been the preferred arrangement in the ancient world as well.(I will note at this moment that this aspect of the film did not hold a great deal of personal interest for me; my eye was drawn more to the heaving bosom of one of the noblewomen.)The theme is handled quite discreetly. Could contemporary audiences have missed it entirely? But the film would have had no point then. This presumed relationship is conveyed mostly through glances and tone, plus one more explicit statement at the end.Since the model is also the painter's adopted son, much of the drama takes the form of parent vs. petulant, ungrateful offspring -- more traditional subject matter in other words. The son takes up with a pretty princess, disappointing his father.Some of the character definition is unusual. The father smokes a pipe with a very long stem, like Bilbo Baggins or some other hobbit. An artist's affectation? The son has a sensitive side; he's a big fan of Charlie Chaplin and Jackie Coogan in "The Kid" (1921). Blatant movie references are very common now, but it's really strange to see one in 1924.I referred to the Graeco-Roman world earlier. If there are any classical analogies at work here, then this is a Jupiter-Ganymede story where Ganymede runs off with one of Io, Europa, or Callisto. Officially Ganymede was Jupiter's cupbearer, and this film has a recurrent leitmotif involving a set of English glasses. Coincidence? But I think I am seeing subtext when there really isn't any. Perhaps there were mythological strands running through the original novel.I personally found this scenario to be fairly overwrought and uninvolving. However there is a very fine performance by Benjamin Christensen as the painter, plus simply stand-out photography and set decoration. These upper-class rooms are even more finely appointed than the ones in "Mockery", directed by Christensen in 1927, and that was an MGM production. Overall credit is due to director Carl Dreyer for the film's virtues.The print which was shown at Cinematheque Ontario is part of a touring Christensen retrospective which had played in September at MOMA in New York. The booklet produced for the New York screenings is a very good one, "Benjamin Christensen: An International Dane" edited by Jytte Jensen.The film itself was actually entitled "Michael" and had intertitles in German. The original novelist I'm sure was billed as Hermann Bong [sic], rather than Herman Bang, while the young lovers were called (Eugene) Michael and Princess Zamikow rather than Mikaël and Zamikoff.