[Note: This is the fifth post in a continuing series discussing and analyzing our favorite Krimis and Gialli (some of the reviews started as rough drafts on my Letterboxd account). As with every post on this site, SPOILERS SHOULD BE EXPECTED.]
My Krimi Rating: ★★★½ (out of 5★)
Subcategory (if any):
i. Masked Monk Krimi
ii. Inheritance Scheme Krimi
iii. Arent-as-Comedy-Routine Krimi
iv. Kinski-as-Grotesque Krimi
v. Ingénue-in-Distress Krimi
vi. Old Dark House Krimi
Who Portrays the Detective (amateur or official):
Joachim Fuchsberger (amateur); Eddi Arent (official); Charles Regnier (official)
Who's the Ingénue:
Grit Boettcher
In My Krimi Top 20 (Y/N): Yes (Letterboxd link)
Not unlike THE STRANGE COUNTESS, this Krimi starts with a strong, visually interesting prologue, suffers from a middle that feels belabored and all over the place (esp. in terms of the unspooling of the plot), and features a final 10 or 15 minutes that becomes exponentially more interesting than the rest of the movie combined. This interest (again, mirroring the Gloria Swanson-like mugging and frenzied whispering of the Countess) is located solely in the performance of the moneyed, “mad” character who finally reveals the extent of his madness. The meltdown of Lord Chelford (Dieter Borsche) here becomes the climax of the film.
[1. OPENING STRONG]
The interest here lies in an in media res introduction of a plot concerning an ancient family treasure, an ancient family curse, and the black-masked Abbot whose piercing eyes and peaked head haunt the whole affair like a ghost. Some characters scoff at the existence of the treasure; others swear by it—get driven mad by it—or get dispatched by the Abbot who puts an end to their grasping, conniving plans.
The prologue opens with an unnamed man stalking around the ruins of a massive estate. His sneaking in the night is being watched by the Abbot, who proceeds to knife the man in the back. That murder segues to the by-now-familiar gunshot sound effects that throw up 12 bloody splotches on the screen (one for every letter of Wallace's name). And then on to the credits sequence.
Despite coming just a year before his far superior PHANTOM OF SOHO, this effort by director F.J. Gottlieb
feels exponentially less sophisticated, less ahead of its time, less
forward-looking (in terms of anticipating not only what the Krimi
genre would do, but what would come to be hallmarks of both the Giallo and Slasher genres as well).
|
[2. A MIDDLE THAT FALLS DOWN, DRIFTS, WANDERS AIMLESSLY ABOUT]
Diluted is really the word here. Also repetitive, and a bit confused:
One of one-too-many red herrings, getting what it deserves. |
- At least three different people are revealed to be the Abbot (except, of course, they aren’t); these revelations totally take the air out of the menace, the popped eyes and cowl, the black stalking silhouette of a mystery man who is presented as maybe being a supernatural being, even one who is so powerful, none of the characters will be able to stand up under his baleful gaze.
Familiar face Werner Peters reveals the urges that drive his attempts at blackmail. He is, as we often find him in the Krimi, a despicable stain of a man. |
- Three or four different characters hatch (and fail at) conflicting blackmail schemes. Some of these blackmail plans fail literally within minutes of being introduced in the movie, which makes them seem not only extraneous, but blaringly unnecessary red herrings. Also esp. tedious are the scenes of various characters trying to find the underground entrance to the cache of family treasure. The scenes open atmospherically enough...
... but they fall down at maintaining that atmosphere far too fast. |
Eddi being Eddi. |
And again. |
- Eddi Arent’s high-jinks, which feel, at the beginning of the movie, like they’ll be relatively toned down, instead become increasingly obnoxious as the movie goes on. Increasingly pratfall-faced. Increasingly counterproductive to the movie’s otherwise mysterious tone. (This is esp. true when he, once again, breaks the fourth wall for a goof, as the last shot of the movie.)
- Dieter Borsche's Lord Chelford is sidetracked on account of repeatedly being drugged by his doctor (all to "help him sleep"). This clears the stage for too many of the supporting characters who don't, ultimately, leave much of a mark.
- And poor Klaus Kinski. After his mostly forgettable cameo in THE DOOR WITH SEVEN LOCKS, this is maybe his next, least-memorable appearance as a series villain. He plays Thomas Fortuna, the always lurking, “stunningly well-informed” ex-convict butler working for Lord Chelford. In his limited screen time, Kinski tries to blackmail Joachim Fuchsberger (Chelford's confidant-slash-administrator) and keeps feeding secret information to Peters' character. He is murdered while masquerading as the Abbot; all in all, his screen time lacks any of his patented, nuanced, unfiltered W-E-I-R-D. For the movie, his inclusion is a miss.
[3. ENDING PSYCHOTRONIC AND STRONG]
Lord Chelford, like the aforementioned Strange Countess,
is the one who finally reveals himself both to be utterly insane, and
the single best thing about the movie.
Lord Chelford, getting increasingly lost in the paranoia of his own head. |
This mental break sets in motion the most sublime section of the movie. He is all at once a ball of contorted, clashing emotions: He is a petulant, tantrum-prone man-child. A possessive but aloof plantonic lover. A death- and treasure-obsessed old man, mortally afraid that he will be the last of his line. A real insane case, with the last 10 minutes or so giving us his various pathological states, rapid-fire like:
Would that Borsche could've held sway over more of the film. Would definitely make the final product rate more highly. Still, added to the middle of the Letterboxd list.
Leonard Jacobs
September, 2014
[SHOW NOTES]VERSION WATCHED: The German DVD release offered in Vol. 4 of the Edgar Wallace Box Sets. | LANGUAGE: Whenever possible, I watch these with the German soundtrack and English subs, which I did here. I rewatched portions with the English sountrack (while taking caps) and found it to be distractingly bad. | DIRECTOR: Franz Joseph Gottlieb | WRITER(S): Edgar Wallace, Johannes Kai, Franz Joseph Gottlieb | MUSIC: Martin Böttcher | CAST: Joachim Fuchsberger (Dick Alford); Grit Boettcher (Leslie Gine); Dieter Borsche (Lord Harry Chelford); Charles Regnier (Detective Puddler); Eva Ingeborg Scholz (Mary Wenner); Werner Peters (Fabian Gilder); Alice Treff (Lady Chelford); Harry Wüstenhagen (Arthur Gine); Friedrich Schoenfelder (Dr. Loxon); Eddi Arent (Horatio W. Smith); Klaus Kinski (Thomas Fortuna); Kurd Pieritz (Smooth)
I hope you can clear something up for me. As you say, three people masquerade as the Abbot over the course of the film, but are we to take it as read that the one who gets killed is the same one who committed the opening murder? Because I thought it was later revealed that they were both working for the same man.
ReplyDeleteFirst, apologies for the delay in responding to your question. I went back and rewatched the second half of the movie to jog my memory and try to figure out the answer.
ReplyDeleteFOR ANYONE ELSE READING THIS, WHO HASN'T SEEN THE MOVIE, THE REST WILL BE SPOILER-FILLED.
You're right that it remains a bit of a head-scratcher. I can't think that we're to believe it's either Alford or Dr. Loxon, variously posing as the Abbot to placate Lady Chelford, who murders Mr. Smooth in cold blood. If so, their role as largely sympathetic heroes (with Alford ending up as the one who both "gets the girl" and the treasure at the end of the movie) seems ruined.
When the Inspector confronts Gilder about his association with Fortuna, he actually accuses Gilder of having ordered Fortuna to kill Mr. Smooth, even though, as you say, without further explanation that makes no sense. Are we to assume that Smooth was trying to go behind Gilder's back and hatch yet another of the movie's endless parade of double-cross schemes? I think, if we assume that it was indeed Fortuna as the Abbot in the opening prologue, then the movie fails to properly explain why he would have been ordered to commit that murder.
I suppose, with Arent mugging at the camera at the end (as the "final" Abbot), the audience isn't supposed to remember any of the loose ends.
What's especially confusing about the film is that it gives us two sets of people (Alford and Loxon on the one hand, Fortuna on the other) who are posing as the Abbot for completely different reasons. I'm reminded of The Mad Executioners (a krimi I liked quite a bit more than you did), which had two separate groups of Executioners, but took pains to distinguish between them by making sure their costuming was different enough that the viewer could readily identify the second group as "imposters."
ReplyDeleteAh, good point. Somebody should do a spreadsheet of all the masked "executioners" in Krimis and their competing identities, motives, screen time, etc.
ReplyDelete... and I liked *half* of THE MAD EXECUTIONERS ... just couldn't get past the feeling that it was two different movies spot-welded into one not-so-good one :( ... also, I have to say that, other than Borsche, I find the cast kind of forgettable (though that's down to nothing else but personal taste I'll admit). Maybe when I rewatch it, for the write-up here, I'll have a better time with it?
The thing that I appreciate most about The Mad Executioners is just how much screen time its hooded characters get. In most other krimi, we're lucky if we have five minutes of them in costume. (I may not have a spreadsheet, but I do keep track of that sort of thing.)
ReplyDelete