Spoilers herein.
Most commentors remark on the `expressionist' sets and lighting. But these in fact were already common in contemporary stage productions, and just represented here as if they were stage sets. It is true that these have odd angles. But notice how the camera is always rectilinear: stationary, it shoots straight from eye level. That part isn't novel at all. The consciousness of the camera as a character comes from Eisenstein.
But what is novel is the framing device which is the first example I know which plays with the veracity of the film's eye. And in THIS respect, the film is important. It is the progenitor of many experiments in folded, shifting narrative from `Rashomon' to `Mullholland Drive.'
Most commentors remark on the `expressionist' sets and lighting. But these in fact were already common in contemporary stage productions, and just represented here as if they were stage sets. It is true that these have odd angles. But notice how the camera is always rectilinear: stationary, it shoots straight from eye level. That part isn't novel at all. The consciousness of the camera as a character comes from Eisenstein.
But what is novel is the framing device which is the first example I know which plays with the veracity of the film's eye. And in THIS respect, the film is important. It is the progenitor of many experiments in folded, shifting narrative from `Rashomon' to `Mullholland Drive.'