Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Prix de Beaute

  • Jun. 5th, 2006 at 11:27 PM
lulu, louise brooks
You know how with a Shakespeare play, at first the language seems weird and stilted, and you wonder how anyone could possibly take it seriously.. until you get into the story and then you don't even notice, you're in the play's world. It's the same with silent movies, I think -- it seems strange at first but, with the good ones, you get pulled into their world and you forget the medium and just watch the story. I find that with Louise Brooks anyway -- she's not just beautiful but magnetic and engaging, unequaled at drawing you into her story.


Still, for all that, I don't often feel in the mood for Shakespeare or a Lulu film, even if I know I'll probably enjoy it once it gets going, which is why Prix de Beaute has been sitting by the DVD player for a couple of weeks. The funny thing is, it's not actually silent; it was shot as a silent movie, just on the cusp of the talkie age, and re-edited for sound later (with a French actress dubbing Lulu's parts). But it's an odd hybrid -- the dialogue is minimal, and what there is isn't very well synchronized (or, in Brooks's case, at all), and clearly Brooks was exerting all her silent skills, and that expressive face. Some reviewers find the poor technical execution hard to ignore, but I found, as usual, once I was into the movie, I barely noticed. who cares if her lips don't move at the right spots? why did we think that was so important anyway?

(spoilers ahead) the one thing I had trouble suspending disbelief over was what an ass her fiance is, and that she would listen to him instead of telling him to go to hell. how anyone could make such a big deal over a beauty contest and be so cruel to his love is beyond me. I know, it's the values of another time, but I usually have no problem with that -- I can accept the values of a Jane Austen or a Shakespeare fine. I guess this just seemed beyond the pale. who would marry an ass like that? only the perpetually doomed Louise Brooks. yes, the movie kind of starts off as a bit of fluff (with plenty of bathing beauties, fellows hold on to your hats) but turns dark and ultimately tragic. you just know that when Louise Brooks is paired up with GW Pabst she's going to end up dead at the hands of some love-crazed ass. as usual, Brooks says pretty much everything with her face. her happy scenes are as radiant as anything ever put on film, her canary-in-a-cage misery is forlorn, and in her final moment of joy and then death, she's completely beautiful -- the final moment of her lying dead, with the film of her singing "don't think I'm untrue" running above her is unforgettable.

Comments

[info]elkay wrote:
Jun. 6th, 2006 10:15 am (UTC)
Lousie Brooks got a mention in Neil Gaiman's _American Gods_, which I recently read and can't shut up about, as the greatest American actress evar.
[info]optic wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2006 02:40 pm (UTC)
a case could be made, though it's hard to put a couple of brilliant movies and a lot of luminous small parts against some of the full careers of other actresses. certainly I think it's easy to say she could have been the greatest actress ever.
[info]rance wrote:
Jun. 6th, 2006 02:37 pm (UTC)
I found Prix de Beaute quite mediocre until that amazing ending -- one of the most gripping in all of cinema (I think that's the voice of Edith Piaf doing the singing, if I'm not mistaken).

One problem in the earlier parts is that the film falls victim to the fascintion with loudness that plagued the early days of sound. Lots of overly extended shots of noisy environments.
[info]optic wrote:
Jun. 6th, 2006 03:47 pm (UTC)
no, it's definitely uneven through most of it. for me, Brooks carried my interest through lots of it, but I thought parts of it dragged. at least until the 'housewife' section. agreed on the sound a bit, though I thought it was very interesting in places the way it was halfway between a silent and a talkie in style, and the way sound was used a bit differently than even a few years later. the sound was almost impressionistic in places (since it couldn't be precise) and the result was a sort of abstraction of what was going on. the scene at the fair was very effective because of all that confusion of sound, and the judging scene was less like a real crowd than an idea of a crowd, plus weird because of the way those guys were leering at her.
[info]_silent_star_ wrote:
Jun. 6th, 2006 05:46 pm (UTC)
It's been a long time since I've seen Prix de Beaute, and I don't remember much of it. I loved "Beggars of Life" and "Pandora's Box" also.

I'm a huge Silent Film fan (plus all classics up to WW2) and Louise Brooks definitely stands out in some beguiling way among most actresses of her era. I think what I love about her is a certain deep emotive expression in her eyes.

You hit the nail of her head when you said "she says everything with her face", which is what the good Silent actors had to do. But she did it with a brilliant subtlety that some of her contemporaries didn't have.

For example, Garbo was widely known as an expressive actress, but she was off the scale emotively compared to Brooks.

Brooks' sexuality was also extremely potent in that subtle way. Compared to the flapper sex kitten Clara Bow, who was famous for her sexual provocativeness, Louise was less "obvious" but no less powerful.

Brooks had a certain level of class and subdued sophistication that many comparable acresses lacked. Maybe making European films brought that out in her. You can see a bit of that in Garbo's Swedish films. Hollywood always did like everything "big". :)


[info]optic wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2006 02:39 pm (UTC)
yes, I think that's all true. I think one reason her films are more watchable today than a lot of silent stuff is that it doesn't seem as strange to us, because her acting style was more naturalistic than a lot of silent film acting. it makes you want to cry thinking about the body of work we might have had, had she kept making movies.