It's difficult for me to write a negative review for a Dryer film but I found "Michael" to be extremely confused on every level. I was left with the overall impression that it was little more than a tiresome succession of knowing looks, glowering eyes, arched eyebrows, still portraits and stilted dialog. Starting with the story, even allowing for the times, the relationship between Michael and the Master is anything but clear. At first we're left with the impression they were lovers but as the film progresses this becomes less and less certain. As a homosexual Michael could not be attracted to the Countess yet he is and ultimately betrays the Master for her. So does he then take up with the Master for the comforts provided by him? That would make him a gigolo of the worst kind but Dryer avoids even that label, one that would be easy and natural. It's easy to make allowances for the times but Germany in the twenties was culturally and intellectually an open and experimental society. Yes, a film about overt homosexuals might have received negative attention but was not beyond the pale. How much of a superior film this would have been had Michael been more clearly portrayed as a homosexual, albeit a confused one who, uncertain of his sexuality, seeks to define himself through his affair with the Countess. Or as a bisexual, either a mercenary one who seeks the easiest path to the comforts of life, or a conflicted one torn by his love for the Master and the Countess.
As for the technical aspects I'm also baffled by the editing. In the scene between the Master and the art dealer the Master is shown sitting, then standing facing the art dealer, then again sitting, then again standing. In the Master's death scene his valet is shown crying and walking away and then adjusting the Master's pillow. And these are the obvious ones. And the dialog could not have been more convoluted. If anything it contributed to the overwhelming confusion. Could Dryer really intend to release the film like this?
In the final analysis is this film worth seeing? Of course, and for four reasons, given here in no particular order: a thin Walter Slezak in his second film, Benjamin Christensen as actor instead of director, the subject matter, and because after all it is a Dryer film. Hence my rating of four out of ten.
As for the technical aspects I'm also baffled by the editing. In the scene between the Master and the art dealer the Master is shown sitting, then standing facing the art dealer, then again sitting, then again standing. In the Master's death scene his valet is shown crying and walking away and then adjusting the Master's pillow. And these are the obvious ones. And the dialog could not have been more convoluted. If anything it contributed to the overwhelming confusion. Could Dryer really intend to release the film like this?
In the final analysis is this film worth seeing? Of course, and for four reasons, given here in no particular order: a thin Walter Slezak in his second film, Benjamin Christensen as actor instead of director, the subject matter, and because after all it is a Dryer film. Hence my rating of four out of ten.