I have to preface the review by saying that I have been a very big Garbo fan ever since I saw her in ANNA KARENINA in which she gives one of the finest and most gripping performances ever captured onscreen. In certain films like GRAND HOTEL she veers too much towards an artificial and contrived style of acting, when she plays certain types of characters like the ballerina there (overdoing and overstating the "prima donna" aspect), but still overall I have always included her in my Top 10 list of Classic Hollywood Actresses.
In this film however - the very first she made in America - she is QUITE DISAPPOINTING on the whole, and no her "beauty" alone cannot save her AT ALL here despite what some apparently think. Her facial expressions are sometimes really bizarre, and as the story progresses, she keeps "breaking out" into the SAME quasi-disdainful, quasi-sardonic kind of LAUGH (during her scenes with one particular central character) which becomes SO REPETITIVE AND INSINCERE as to seem both *AMATEURISH* and *BORING*. Surely either she or the director Monta Bell could have come up with different ways to convey her psychological reactions in all those scenes. It might have worked if this was a farcical kind of comedy PERHAPS, but it is NOT that kind of film.
It is also painfully obvious that she is not really singing AT ALL, especially towards the very beginning, but merely moving her lips with ZERO engagement of her body (which is a vital plot point here considering the fact that her character has operatic aspirations). This was a silent film, so she could have just sung something for real, without worrying about what it would "sound" like. Even Audrey Hepburn looks like she's really singing in MY FAIR LADY, and had clearly observed Marni Nixon closely for some physical verisimilitude.
In fact, for much of the film, Garbo looks like she is JUST FAKING IT. There are of course a few scenes where we see glimpses of what would become a terrific actress IN THE YEARS TO COME, but overall she is shockingly GREEN AND RAW and kind of wrong here. Her hand movements look almost laughable in a few scenes that are supposed to be emotionally climactic, completely undercutting the pathos or poignancy meant to be conveyed in those moments. And in the scenes where she keeps laughing that fake He-Man and Skeletor type of laugh from the old Filmation animations, her character comes across as VERY UNLIKEABLE and UNSYMPATHETIC - to the point where the character that we are SUPPOSED to be against emerges in a much more sympathetic and genuinely human light.
I know Garbo was not exactly a very "human" kind of star/actress, but what we see here is not a Sphinx but rather someone who seems almost MISCAST! I swear that Joan Crawford could have done a vastly better job here, or even Norma Shearer for that matter......Constance Bennett, or most other stars-in-the-making that MGM had. Once again, Garbo's mere "look" CANNOT salvage an epic story like this. I wanted so much to fall in love with her from the time she first appeared onscreen as a peasant girl praying in the garden, but she kept making it ever more difficult. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but by the end of it all, I thought she DESERVED her emotional fate (because of the way she played the role) although that's arguably not what the audience is supposed to feel.
By stark contrast, in ANNA KARENINA almost a decade later, she MADE my heart go out to her even though she was playing a selfish adultereress who walked out on her son. I guess she really really needed TIME and a more genius type of director to bring out the kind of performances that would make her an enduring legend.
All this being said, the REST of the cast is PRACTICALLY PITCH PERFECT!!!!! Everyone else is 1000% committed to their characters, and brings out all the psychological and emotional dimensions of their roles to such a degree that Garbo looks like they cast her ONLY for the way she "looked" and not for any acting capabilities she had at the time. The actress who plays Dona Bernarda acts with a superlative degree of NATURALISM for instance, which makes you feel like you're watching something made decades into the future!!!!! That's just one example. The entire supporting cast WORKS WONDERS to make the story come to life and make you believe the illusion that this is really a Spanish village and not just an MGM production!!
The special effects and the torrent sequence are also *ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT*. I imagine it must have struck the 1926 audience as the TITANIC OF ITS TIME.
Hats off to MGM who did not always do this kind of film.......it really does hold up even a century later EVEN THOUGH the leading lady here shockingly turned out to be the WEAK LINK. I don't blindly "worship" any star, however much I may like and admire them overall, and so I will repeat that Garbo is A DISAPPOINTMENT here as an actress. Doesn't matter what she looked like. I don't watch films to see models on display after all!
But it's a MUST SEE film for all classic film buffs. I had to deduct 4 stars for Garbo's performance but it's a REALLY SOLID film in and of itself.......if it was made today it would doubtless be 2 hours or even 2 and a half hours long because of the story's SHEER SCOPE, but for a silent film, it leaves you wanting more which is actually a good thing. Most silent films of the time spanned 60-70 minutes, and even though this is 90 minutes long, it really does leave you yearning for more story. :) It will make you think a lot about the decisions human beings make, and the way we navigate through the vicissitudes of life.
In this film however - the very first she made in America - she is QUITE DISAPPOINTING on the whole, and no her "beauty" alone cannot save her AT ALL here despite what some apparently think. Her facial expressions are sometimes really bizarre, and as the story progresses, she keeps "breaking out" into the SAME quasi-disdainful, quasi-sardonic kind of LAUGH (during her scenes with one particular central character) which becomes SO REPETITIVE AND INSINCERE as to seem both *AMATEURISH* and *BORING*. Surely either she or the director Monta Bell could have come up with different ways to convey her psychological reactions in all those scenes. It might have worked if this was a farcical kind of comedy PERHAPS, but it is NOT that kind of film.
It is also painfully obvious that she is not really singing AT ALL, especially towards the very beginning, but merely moving her lips with ZERO engagement of her body (which is a vital plot point here considering the fact that her character has operatic aspirations). This was a silent film, so she could have just sung something for real, without worrying about what it would "sound" like. Even Audrey Hepburn looks like she's really singing in MY FAIR LADY, and had clearly observed Marni Nixon closely for some physical verisimilitude.
In fact, for much of the film, Garbo looks like she is JUST FAKING IT. There are of course a few scenes where we see glimpses of what would become a terrific actress IN THE YEARS TO COME, but overall she is shockingly GREEN AND RAW and kind of wrong here. Her hand movements look almost laughable in a few scenes that are supposed to be emotionally climactic, completely undercutting the pathos or poignancy meant to be conveyed in those moments. And in the scenes where she keeps laughing that fake He-Man and Skeletor type of laugh from the old Filmation animations, her character comes across as VERY UNLIKEABLE and UNSYMPATHETIC - to the point where the character that we are SUPPOSED to be against emerges in a much more sympathetic and genuinely human light.
I know Garbo was not exactly a very "human" kind of star/actress, but what we see here is not a Sphinx but rather someone who seems almost MISCAST! I swear that Joan Crawford could have done a vastly better job here, or even Norma Shearer for that matter......Constance Bennett, or most other stars-in-the-making that MGM had. Once again, Garbo's mere "look" CANNOT salvage an epic story like this. I wanted so much to fall in love with her from the time she first appeared onscreen as a peasant girl praying in the garden, but she kept making it ever more difficult. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but by the end of it all, I thought she DESERVED her emotional fate (because of the way she played the role) although that's arguably not what the audience is supposed to feel.
By stark contrast, in ANNA KARENINA almost a decade later, she MADE my heart go out to her even though she was playing a selfish adultereress who walked out on her son. I guess she really really needed TIME and a more genius type of director to bring out the kind of performances that would make her an enduring legend.
All this being said, the REST of the cast is PRACTICALLY PITCH PERFECT!!!!! Everyone else is 1000% committed to their characters, and brings out all the psychological and emotional dimensions of their roles to such a degree that Garbo looks like they cast her ONLY for the way she "looked" and not for any acting capabilities she had at the time. The actress who plays Dona Bernarda acts with a superlative degree of NATURALISM for instance, which makes you feel like you're watching something made decades into the future!!!!! That's just one example. The entire supporting cast WORKS WONDERS to make the story come to life and make you believe the illusion that this is really a Spanish village and not just an MGM production!!
The special effects and the torrent sequence are also *ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT*. I imagine it must have struck the 1926 audience as the TITANIC OF ITS TIME.
Hats off to MGM who did not always do this kind of film.......it really does hold up even a century later EVEN THOUGH the leading lady here shockingly turned out to be the WEAK LINK. I don't blindly "worship" any star, however much I may like and admire them overall, and so I will repeat that Garbo is A DISAPPOINTMENT here as an actress. Doesn't matter what she looked like. I don't watch films to see models on display after all!
But it's a MUST SEE film for all classic film buffs. I had to deduct 4 stars for Garbo's performance but it's a REALLY SOLID film in and of itself.......if it was made today it would doubtless be 2 hours or even 2 and a half hours long because of the story's SHEER SCOPE, but for a silent film, it leaves you wanting more which is actually a good thing. Most silent films of the time spanned 60-70 minutes, and even though this is 90 minutes long, it really does leave you yearning for more story. :) It will make you think a lot about the decisions human beings make, and the way we navigate through the vicissitudes of life.