Wow
Author: jimi99 from denver
9 August 2002
The equine theme running through this bizarre, campy, creepy, cynical, disturbingly beautiful bio-pic is quite significant, given the facts of the life and death of Catherine the Great, culminating in the wildly over-the-top final shot. This movie just drips with European social and sexual decadence, and also with incredibly lavish and languid imagery throughout. Dietrich and von Sternberg seem determined to prove that they could make the transformation of a naive romantic girl into a lascivious power-mad monarch somehow heroic, and also that American audiences would lap it up while denying the depth of the depravity they were embracing. This movie succeeds on every level, especially the subversive one...
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
"The sport of tyrants"
Author: Steffi_P from Ruritania
15 March 2010
The best directors are adaptable, able to turn their talents to the needs of story and stars. On the other hand, a stylistic individualist such as Joseph "von" Sternberg may be excellent at what they do, but completely inflexible and as such their work tends to be uneven. However, although Sternberg was unable to bend his style to suit the material, there is always the chance that sooner or later the material would come along to suit his style. Enter The Scarlet Empress.
It may be based on a true story, but The Scarlet Empress makes only fleeting contact with reality. It is a macabre, nightmarish fairytale imagining of history. As such Sternberg can go all out with his bizarre stylisation and disregard for convention. All those things which made a mess of his other pictures – the odd angles, the distracting foreground clutter, the hammy acting – they all fit in here. Sternberg was never one to elucidate plot or draw out emotional depth, and The Scarlet Empress is the one picture where he doesn't really need to.
In this light, we can actually take time to appreciate the excesses of Sternberg's technique. The early scenes in Germany are comparatively light and airy. When Count Alexei arrives he introduces a swathe of blackness. From this point on Sternberg literally darkens the picture, not just from scene to scene but from moment to moment, for example when Alexei's cloak envelops Marlene as he kisses her. The Russian palace is a surreal creation, more like a bejewelled cave than a building. We can see the fine craftsmanship of Hans Dreier, but he was doubtless directed fairly thoroughly by Sternberg himself. It's shot and lit in such a way that it appears to have no limits, its edges lost in shadow. And as for Sternberg's close-ups! They are strange, wonderful, glittering portraits, worthy of the painted icons that are such a part of Russian culture. The only pity is that Sternberg treats his cast as merely part of the mechanical process. To him, a good actor like Sam Jaffe is simply there to be a grotesque, little different to the stone ones adorning every set.
The exception is Marlene. Ms Dietrich shimmers under Sternberg's lens. Not only does she stand out more here than any other picture, like a shimmering jewel amid the shadows, this also happens to be her very finest performance. When we first meet her, she is a world away from her familiar screen persona, playing the teenage Catherine as timid, naïve and frail. As the plot progresses she transforms into the smart and confident seductress, and finally emerges as the charismatic empress-in-waiting, and this at last is the Marlene we all know. Her development, though radical, is absolutely believable, and throughout her acting is utterly flawless.
And then, there is the music. The Scarlet Empress is an almost constantly musical picture, with much of the action wordlessly choreographed to a pounding background score. It is a truly symphonic work, what Michael Powell referred to as a "composed film". And it is reminiscent of Russian music purely in its tone – it has that same cruel, stark quality of Mussorgsky and Prokofiev; music from a culture who get a lot of ice and not much daylight. And yet the composer whose work is most prominently used in The Scarlet Empress is Tchaikovsky, by and large a confectioner of nice but plain melodic pieces. His music fits though, especially the Slavic March, and in any case Tchaikovsky has a lot in common with Sternberg – pretty but lacking in depth. And Tchaikovsky still had his masterpieces.
The most stupendous homage ever paid to an actress.
Author: fbarthet from Australia
4 August 2014
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw "The Scarlet Empress" many times. On TV, in movie theaters. I cannot simply imagine the world without that film, certainly in my Top Ten Favourites list.
Style is the first word that came to my mind when I think of von Sternberg (he added the von to his name but he clearly deserves it). And "The Scarlet Empress' is purely "un exercice de style". People often use the concept of "Expressionism" to describe the photography or the ambiance of the film but it is simply because it is not a classical Hollywood movie in style or in atmosphere. There is nothing strictly "Expressionist" in "The Scarlet Empress" as the expression of emotions is definitely secondary to the creation of a style as a "raison d'etre".
The early years of Catherine the Great (before she even become Catherine the Great) as described by von Sternberg are not corresponding to a strict historical version. This is not the point. This is about the transformation of a woman from a tender, naive and gentle "Prussian rose" into a Machiavelian, merciless praying-mantis, cold as steel, hot as Hell. It is probably a bit stretched, but I find a lot of similarities between the depiction of how Sophia Frederica became Catherine the Great and the personal story of Marlene Dietrich. When she was chosen by von Sternberg for the role of Lola Lola, she was active in German show business for years. At that time, she was a bit plump, more "the girl next door" than "she who must be obeyed". Then, "Der Blaue Engel". Then Hollywood, a few more movies with her "creator" and the woman became Legend, something out of this world.
in a way, the character played (quite well) by John Lodge reminds me of von Sternberg in front of Marlene. When Sophia Frederica sees the handsome, dashing and fascinating Russian envoy, it is Marlene at the time where she was just another actress in the boiling last years of the Weimar Republic. The Count seduces her, makes her falling for him (easily after she discovered her future husband is a raving maniac looking like a monkey on acid). And then, the brutal wake-up: he is the lover of the reigning empress! The little princess throws her broken heart in the sewer and decides to reject everything she was previously: a bit like what did "La" Dietrich after she arrived in Hollywood. And this is were I see the comparison between the character of John Lodge and von Sternberg. Von Sternberg tried to keep the evasive Marlene under his spell for years, making six more movies with (for) her. But she was far away already, long ago. And the face of John Lodge when he discovers than he will never be Catherine the Great's lover, simply because he played with her heart and betrayed her naive love, is a kind of symbol of the filmmaker losing his grip on his creature. But was she ever HIS creature?
Of course, Marlene dominates the film. She is radiant, more beautiful and glamorous than in any other movie. She is also excellent. She plays, at 33, the young, virginal princess very convincingly, her great doe-like eyes constantly moving from one surprise to another. After the betrayal of the man she thinks she loves, she becomes a kind of Nietschian character, bigger than life, cynical and ruthless. But the close-up of her face, after she dismissed John Lodge and now waits for the Count Orlov, her new caprice, shows a distressed woman. A woman who was betrayed by her first love, and whose revenge is bitter-sweet, if not pathetic.
The other actors are all brilliant but Louise Dresser as the empress Elisabeth and Sam Jaffe as the Grand Duke Peter, respectively mother in law and husband of Catherine, are particularly outstanding. Louise Dresser plays herself a cynical and ruthless empress who knows her weaknesses but put the destiny of Russia about everything. Sam Jaffe, well, was the character actor by excellence, able to play a Russian Grand Duke or Gunga Din. His Peter is an absolute maniac but he manages to make him more pathetic and pitiful than monstrous. In the end, he is a poor fellow too small for his own crown. You feel almost sorry for him when he dies.
Von Sternberg acted as a real demiurge in this movie, controlling/creating everything: lights, camera angles and moves, sets and costumes. It gives to the movie this extraordinary atmosphere not only of total art but of fantasy as well (the scenes of rapes and tortures could not have been made six months later, many thanks to the Hays Code). It is extremely claustrophobic in spite of the size of the sets as almost all the action occurs in the imperial palace which looks like a Gothic castle, Russian style.
During the wedding scene, one cannot forget the close-up on Marlene's face, her eyes terrified and fascinated as well, and the flame of the candle in her hand bending under her invisible breath, like a heartbeat.
Josef Von Sternberg brings the Russian Court to the Hollywood stage
Author: binapiraeus from Greece
21 April 2014
This is Von Sternberg's work - this characterization alone is almost enough to describe this picture. As always, the great Master revels in his love for opulence, grand settings, theatrical acting, sex, intrigues, and violence; and since "The Scarlet Empress" was one of the last pictures to 'escape' the full enforcement of the Production Code, he can do so once more without almost ANY restriction.
It's nothing like a historical movie, of course - except that it goes roughly along the real events in the 17th century: the young German princess Sophia is summoned by the Russian empress Elizabeth to marry her half-wit son and bring some 'fresh blood' into the decadent czarist line. And Marlene Dietrich is a WONDERFUL sight throughout all the picture: how she 'develops' from the innocent young girl that's still hoping for a beautiful prince into a disillusioned, willful, lustful woman; in the beginning she's almost shocked by the advances of the good-looking count Alexej, who turns out to be one of the greatest heart-breakers of the court - but the longer she's forced to live with her literally abominable demented husband, the new Czar, the more she gets to like the idea that 'every woman in the court has got her lovers'; and so she virtually 'commandeers' all the army officers - something which will help her a lot in the counter-intrigue she's forced to spin against the deadly intrigues of her 'husband'...
So this is a REAL pre-Code movie (and certainly one of the most pompous and extravagant of all) - and it's got a very interesting and unique aspect to it concerning sex: here, the MEN are the 'sex objects', not only for the formerly innocent Sophia, who's become reckless and randy Catherine - but even for the lustful old empress Elizabeth! The only one who'd shown a similar 'attitude' in pre-Code movies was Mae West... (Who'd in fact wanted very much herself to make a movie about Catherine the Great, but Von Sternberg beat her to it; well, she turned her own ideas into a stage play later on...) So, as far away from any kind of reality as it may be - enjoy it as a Hollywood 'fairy tale' (of the 'nasty' kind...); it's one of the most entertaining ones ever made!
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Peter Just Can't Cut It As Czar
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
18 May 2009
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
By all accounts Catherine the Great was one remarkable woman. The Queen Consort of Czar Peter III of Russia, she got the throne from him in a palace coup d'etat and ruled for 33 years. She was also a woman of some lusty sexual appetites just like the woman who portrays her in The Scarlet Empress. It's what distinguishes The Scarlet Empress from the Alexander Korda production of Catherine The Great that starred Elizabeth Bergner and came out the same time.
Both tell the same story from young Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst chosen as a bride for the Russian Tsarevitch. But Bergner plays her almost as an innocent though you see traces of the lusty woman Catherine became. Marlene Dietrich loses her innocence and you see a woman who used sex to get her way whether it was political gain or sexual satisfaction that she wasn't getting from the imbecile who was her husband.
As for Czar Peter, though Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. gives a fine performance, we see a psychotic Czar in him. Sam Jaffe is far closer to the truth, the childlike imbecile who was overwhelmed he didn't measure up in the bedroom or the throne room. This film was Jaffe's screen debut, a far cry from Dr. Reifenschneider in The Asphalt Jungle or the High Lama of Shangri-La, all three very different parts.
In fact historians and scholars debate to this day whether Paul who succeeded his mother was Peter's child or was sired by one of Catherine's many lovers.
Gavin Gordon and John Davis Lodge play two of her lovers. Lodge was a man like Ronald Reagan who made it big in two different careers. A member of THE Lodge family of Massachusetts, the younger brother of Henry Cabot Lodge, Ike's UN Ambassador, this Lodge left the law for acting and then after Navy service in World War II became a Congressman, Governor of Connecticut, and Ambassador to Spain.
To me it's tossup between Flora Robson in Catherine the Great and Louise Dresser as to who the better Empress Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the daughter of Peter the Great, aunt of Sam Jaffe. Her appetites were as big as Catherine's, but her ruthlessness somewhat less. Like Elizabeth I of England, she never married and produced an heir to the throne, but also no one bothered to keep up any fiction about the Russian Elizabeth being a virgin.
With some footage from Ernst Lubitsch's silent classic The Patriot, Joseph Von Sternberg crafted one of the better efforts from his collaboration with Marlene Dietrich. He also drove the Paramount Pictures bean counters absolutely crazy by going over budget. The Scarlet Empress was expensive and looks expensive. Von Sternberg spent Paramount's money in a way they could only justify with Cecil B. DeMille.
Von Sterberg made good use of music to cover many stretches of no dialog. And after seven years of talking pictures, he also used title cards and effectively when 99% of films had dropped them for good.
Paramount did not appreciate the money they lost on The Scarlet Empress, but Marlene, Von Sternberg, and even the bean counters know now they made a classic.
85/100. A rather unusual film, director Josef von Sternberg's stylish and offbeat direction certainly makes this an interesting movie. What a production, the art direction is amazing, as are the costumes. You can see von Sternberg's eye for the visual throughout the film, particularly in the dramatic cinematography and use of shadows and light. The cast is great. Marlene Deitrich is hauntingly beautiful, Louise Dresser is impressive as Empress Petrovna and Sam Jaffe does well as the half-wit, Grand Duke Peter. The score is powerful, and also occasionally intrusive. Although released in 1934, it has silent film elements in it, perhaps von Sternberg was not quite comfortable with talking pictures. Overall, it's quite a remarkable film.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Style Style Style--and Dietrich Dietrich Dietrich!
Author: secondtake from United States
19 June 2010
The Scarlet Empress (1934)
Pageantry is not everyone's idea of excitement, but at least director Josef von Sternberg knows how to make a great movie. The pacing and filming, as conservative as it is (compared to its contemporaries, from Scarface to Dinner at Eight, take your pick, or more inventive European films), is superbly intelligent, and superbly visual. Man, the lush sets are framed to excess in a rich, beautiful way, and when I mean excess, it's impossible to imagine a more stylized, packed, overripe set of scenes, one after another in very fast succession.
Of course, part of these sets and scenes is the incomparable Marlene Dietrich, by now a von Sternberg mainstay. (He practically worshipped her, and this was their seventh film together.) For my money she is not her best in this one, but she is the main spark of life in all the pomp and layered decorations and astonishing lighting. She is also sculpturally vivid, if that's the right word. Take the close-ups through a veil about 32 minutes in. Simple, moving stuff, with a flickering candle and her eyes catching the light. But that's one of hundreds (literally) great short clips and moments.
The story is of course limited by history--it's based (loosely, for sure) on the life of Catherine the Great. Too bad the real horror of a ghastly arranged marriage is dampened by all the cinematic fineness--it's to be understood and spoken of more than emotionally felt. Too bad it's generally more interested in its effect than in accuracy. Or I should say, good thing. Who needs an accurate story of Catherine the Great, anyway? What we have is a glorious bit of European-influences Hollywood in the vigorous early 1930s, a high point for sure in our movie history. Watch for the scenes of Catherine as a child--they are played by Dietrich's daughter.
I think if you aren not into Dietrich (she doesn't really have to act here, just pose), or into period movies in general, or visual effects over plot, you'll find this wearying, or even unbearable. The pastiche of endless bits of Russian classical music alone might be overbearing. But still, it might all surprise you. It's a kind of masterpiece, like all of their collaborations one way or another. It's mind-blowing and unique, a victory of style of substance, but such style!
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Marlene
Author: kai ringler from United States
10 January 2010
Wow,, what can i say Marlene Dietrich what an actress, not too mention probably one of the five most beautiful girls in the world probably at that time. this film is about a princess , played by Ms. Dietrich she is suppposed to be married to the Grand Duke,, along the way though she flirts with a member of the Duke' royal cabinet , his excellency a man much more older than her,, she clearly has fallen for him and teases him somewhat. she arrives to be wed to the Grand Duke and it is clear that the two do not llke each other to say the least, we later learn that not all is right with the kingdom, Catherine soons takes over the reigns of the emperor , now making her the grand empress of the U.S.S.R. all in all this is not a bad film ,, but rather almost a classic to me.
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Dietrich better than some critics insist (Maybe a minor spoiler), costuming lukewarm
Author: flavia18 from United States
23 February 2007
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have to disagree with those who say, flat-out, that Marlene Dietrich did not, or could not, play an innocent very well on film. I beg to differ, certainly in the early scenes of the film. Her wide-eyed breathlessness was very believable - certainly as believable as any other acting on the screen. It is, in fact, the very first scene where she has to take the first step in transforming from innocent to jaded that she falters. Her actions and facial expressions are awkward at best, even imbecilic. The most ridiculous thing is her insisting on putting straw in her mouth, but this is obviously on the demand of the director, because she does it somewhat later in the film to great effect.
I want also to remark on the costuming: most is rather in line with the usual half-baked interpretations of historical costuming done by Hollywood - and, as usual in badly-costumed epics, the poor negligee takes the brunt of it. But 3 gowns are of note. The very first dress she wears is a very good approximation of period line, a riding outfit that is seen when she runs up the stairs is instantly recognizable as being from the period, and, from little could actually be seen of her wedding dress, I think it is a close replica of the original.
All the mutually-mated and mutated blue blood of the courts of Europe must have curdled into a brain-stunting stew long before 1760, so its fitting that Von Sternberg's vision of the Russian dynasty is so damaged and deranged, importing fresh Prussian genes (Dietrich as Catherine) to arrest the degenerative slide. Sam Jaffe's Grand Duke Peter (later, briefly, the Emperor Peter III) is Harpo Marx cross bred with Tiny Tim on the Island of Dr Moreau. Marlene Dietrich's Catherine, after an initial doe-eyed turn as an innocent, is an automaton of desire, arousing with one hand, castrating with the other, at once a vixen and a shrew shot through gauze and candles by a permanently stimulated lens. At its (wordless) best, a feast of ragingly intemperate psycho-sexual and psycho-historical motifs in a wobbly frame.
