A *beep* insult! - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Discussion

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Oh, for goodness sake ... sigh. Blah, blah, blah. You haven't seen the film. Go see it, and THEN come on here and start with the verbals. If your sensibilities have been insulted simply by this film even existing, then I feel for you. You obviously enjoy wearing blinkers, and enjoy haranguing people because they happen to like the film (and if you look at the two comments about TCODC, are from folks who had gone to see this multi-award-winning film at the SCREAMFEST Festival). Or are you one of those folks who cannot ABIDE anyone enjoying something you hate with a passion, even though you know nothing about it and have pre-judged.

If you go see the film, THEN come onto the board and tell us how much you hate it (because, being the person you are, you WILL hate it), and why not give us an intelligent, reasoned explanation for your dislike, other than it is, in your judgementary parlance, a 'remake.' How do you know WHAT it is? You haven't even had the good grace to give it the benefit of a doubt until you have seen it.

Until then, I for one have no time for you. You are the kind of filmgoer any cinema fan can do without - a bigot. Or are you too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'LA LA LA!!!!!' at the top of your voice so you don't have to listen to other folks' opinions?

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com

reply

[–] insert_nickname_here 18 years ago

Lol, that was priceless dude.

Really though, don't take this stuff too seriously, you'll live longer. (Granted, I maybe I shouldn't had used the word 'seriously' like three times, but still.)

Now I won't go into a game of mutual namecallig, 'cause depite what you might think that's not my thing. I have to make one observation though, which I find amusing, namely that you say I shouldn't judge the film before seeing it and that I can't know 'what it is'. Yet you throw quite an enseble of judgements my way based on a single post. And I'm just bashing a film, not people.

Anyway, of course the movie could be pretty good, hell, regardless of context it probably will be, I mean, It's a remake (that's not 'judgementary parlance', it's quite a normal word) of a great film and based on the trailer they seem to have captured the look of the film pretty well.

That doesn't change that I feel it's only a good idea to make a remake of a bad movie made out of a good concept or if you can make great improvements because of technological advances. The latter could excuse, by lack of a better word, this film, but I don't see it. All that seemt to be added (again based on the trailer) is dialogue, which I wasn't to crazy about.

Now this post is becoming to long. All I want to say is that it's always better to make something new. it adds far more to the whole of cinema and only remake a film if you can do it (significantly) better than the orignal, which doesn't work for a classic, simply because it's a classic (and for the sake of argument I'[m assuming here that quality is inherent to the term classic)

Hey, now you see what you made me do, I'm adding nuances to everything, doesn't that just make you sick...

I need to stop typing now...I'll watch the movie some time after it comes out around here and give a big informed review, kay?

Until then, in the immortal words of the late great Bob Marley, "Don't Worry, Be Happy"

------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Why you little teaser, you. See what you made me do? Rattle my cage an' I hit the bars running, huh.

Seriously (and I use that word a lot, too), you won't know 'what' this film is until you see it. Maybe you're not tickled dandily by the dialogue - fair comment - but I'm delighted that you will make the effort to go and see it. I think you might just be surprised at how different it is. If you don't like it after that ... well, I'll be very interested in your review, whether it's positive or no. That's fine. Perhaps this may turn out to be a 'classic' in its own right, who knows?

Are classics 'quality' films? Whoa. Big subject. Define 'quality.' Define 'classic' for that matter. It isn't the most straightforward of subjects. I just get a little weary of the self-righteous pontificating that goes on when anyone mentions a 'classic' film. For example, some people think 'Kill Bill 1' is a classic. I think it's a pile of camel ordure. My idea of a classic film is 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre.' So sue me. But I tend to keep my choices to myself - after all, I think they're classics and that is all that matters.

And as for the 'don't worry, be happy' thing ... well, I believe in living life dangerously, and possibly be a little Windswept and Interesting into the bargain. But thanks for the entertainment. Lead on, MacDuff!

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/

reply

[–] CornishBoy 18 years ago

These comments are based on what I have seen of the 2005 version on the internet- the trailer, the website, the reviews and the comments on the IMDB website.

Firstly, I hope it's not rude to ask what Mizhelenuk's relationship to the film is- you sound like you could be PR for the film makers- do you know them or have a professional relationship with the film? You seem to talk passionately about it anyway, but it strikes me odd that you are deeming this new version a 'masterpiece', or saying that it is 'innovative' or 'original', when these adjectives seem painfully absent from the project.

This 're-imagining' as you label it, appears to have been made for the worst reasons to remake a film- namely stealing all the positive aspects of the original and adding no new elements, unless of couse the dialogue that accompanies the trailer is for some reason a poor example of what to expect on the full-length film.

Although I believe there were better examples of storytelling in German Expressionism, the original Caligari was ground-breaking and revolutionised the telling of horror stories, thrillers and the idea of film as art. If director Robert Wiene had the technology available to David Lee Fisher, I have no doubt that he would have been able to create something that would shame even the little I have seen of this effort. Also, I would be fascinated to know if the original set designers, Hermann Warm, Walther Reimann and Walter Röhrig are credited, as it seems clear that their work had been severely plaguerised. I would consider any film which uses back projected footage of the original as insulting- where's the imagination in that? From what I can tell, this can only be fairly described as a 're-hash'.

Regarding the trailer- the acting seemed laughable, the lighting shoddy and ineffective, the sound melodramatic in the extreme and the writing (dialogue) as if it had been crafted by someone with only a very basic knowledge of the English language. I am not trying to be insulting, nor am I a film 'bigot'- I am just find this type of filmmaking is tantamount to theft.

I am with Insert Nickname Here, and found his remarks to be on the whole much more balanced and reasonable than most others on this board. Not just because his view is close to mine, but because it is clear he has some sense of what makes great cinema, not just cheap and unremarkable 'entertainment'.

I hope people don't waste 77mins of their lives on this. Watch the original and be amazed.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Firstly, I hope it's not rude to ask what Mizhelenuk's relationship to the film is- you sound like you could be PR for the film makers- do you know them or have a professional relationship with the film? You seem to talk passionately about it anyway, but it strikes me odd that you are deeming this new version a 'masterpiece', or saying that it is 'innovative' or 'original', when these adjectives seem painfully absent from the project.

Not rude in the least, and if you had clicked on the link at the bottom of any of my posts on the IMDb you would have figured out my relationship with regard to this film and others - I'm webmaster for actor Doug Jones' official site. He plays Cesare in this 'reimagining' of Das Kabinett des Dr.Caligari, and I'm not in the least shy about it. I am, as you may well have figured out, a huge fan of this film, know the film-makers and know a little of the extraordinary work they have done in bringing it to the screen. And I am unashamedly proud to say so.

I also know - and am a huge fan of - the original film. So I know how this film treads upon the toes of 'purists' such as your good self, which is fair enough. Nothing I say or do can change that.

Your comments on the face of it seem calm and reasonable, nay, even balanced at the initial reading - indeed, you say you are not a 'film bigot' - yet you have judged the film on the trailer, and you obviously have staunch opinions about how awful it is without ever having seen the film itself. I will not waste my time or my poor fingers trying until I'm blue in the face to convince you otherwise. I think it is innovative, original, and amazing. And I'll stand by that. Go see it at a festival (It is already a three-time award-winner at a very prestigious festival, one of those awards being the much-sought-after Audience Choice Award), and then come back on and rip it to shreds (or not, whatever the case may be). I will welcome your input and your opinions. I love controversy, and I always knew this film would be controversial.

Oh, and yes - everyone is given due credit from the original film, as is only right.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] FRANKDRAFTING 18 years ago

mizhelenuk,
I have not seen this remake, but the website was interesting and the trailer has backgrounds that look exactly like the original, which was classic! I'd love to see this film and will be looking for it on my next netfix order. I enjoy remakes. While it is rare, if ever, that the remake is better than the original, I think of it kind of like a recording artist doing their version of someone else's song. While, maybe not as good, still enjoyable and interesting. I think Caligari has enough bizarre stuff to make new interpretations welcome. If you are a purist, and don't like remakes, leave it at that and don't see it. Believe me, I understand that way of thinking. However, rehashing old stuff in a new light is fun, and highly entertaining, in my humble opinion anyway.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Thank you so much for that, Frankdrafting! I certainly couldn't have said it better myself! The film will make it either into cinemas and/or onto DVD, and as soon as I know anything I'll let you know.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

Okay, first and foremost, let me say that I have not seen this film. I watched the trailer, yeah, but that was out of sheer curiosity. If the new version gets a decent release, I still won't see it. I might rent it on video.

That being said, I have to say that whoever is responsible for this is playing with a bag of tricks that is just shy of a century old. I admit, the first time I saw the film in my german film class, I thought, "Hey, I could do that. *beep* shoot nothing but interiors on a set stage with four or five actors." Then, reason hit, like a board to the head, and I realized that screwing with one of the simplest, greatest films ever made would just be habberdashery.

This is where I go off. Okay, the cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It's a *beep* movie. The original, in terms of storyline, character, and plot is rather drab. In fact, I've seen it so many times (seven, if you count the second time I took Film History) that watching it is akin to watching an erection fail. It's not that entertaining! The original had one gimmick, one trick that might make it watchable, proposed by a bunch of people that wanted to cash in on an artistic look and feel of the times. The fact that German Expressionism and the works of Max Ernst were very creepy to look at does not justify some crap movie about some villian who comes to town to kill folk. It doesn't make any sense. If you look at it, it's akin to Ebert's review of "The Usual Suspects." It's unties itself. If the storyteller is insane, the pretense for the use of an expressionistic storytelling, than what good is the story? If the world of horror and fear proposed by the filmmaker is admittedly falsified by the film, what good is the film? These are just some complaints with the original, only multiplied by eighty years of progress towards the filmmakers. There is no credit due towards one who duplicates a stylistic trick that was *beep* eighty years old at the project's beginning.

I blame the filmmakers for having a very short sight and a very small understanding of film history. The people who see this today will see right through it. The historians and the "purists" as they have been called will see it as an attempt to harness other people's works through bad dialogue *beep* man, the trailer sucked) and innovative camera work (if you are Karl Freund).

All of that being said, defenders of this, bring it on. I await a rebuttal to crush.

"Good, bad. I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Hmmm ... I'm intrigued by your use of the word 'haberdashery' - I'm not really too sure what men's wear has to do with early 20th century German Expressionist cinema - perhaps 'flummery' might have suited you better as to context? Anyway, I don't think I'll bother getting my knickers in a twist about it.

Sooooo ... you think this is all hokum, basically. At least, that't the impression I get from your comments. Gotcha. And yes, I understand your point, and actually agree with you on one thing - it's a film, nothing more, nothing less. So what on earth is all the furore about?

The people who see this today will see right through it.

So what? I love the original, incidentally, and its place in cinematic history cannot be denied, despite it not having the most exciting storyline in the world by today's standards, but hey - I really don't care. You have been careful to mention that you have studied film history and German film, presumably in college, so apparently that fact gives your view more gravitas and meaning in an 'I know more than you do, so there' fashion. Mayhap you're right, dear heart, mayhap you're right. I am but a mere film fan (and an open-minded one at that, who is happy to give most films a chance - other than anything by Ingmar Bergman who has the sensibility and feeling of a depressed vulture, but that's neither here nor there) so therefore my view is less worthy than yours, I suppose ...

But you know what? I love this film. I know the background of it, and know how much love and attention to detail went into it. I know how many people (mostly plebian film-goers like myself who do not have the benefit of college-induced filmic 'education') have thoroughly enjoyed the film and want to know more about the original, and I know how fantastic a reception it received from people who ARE film makers of the highest standard and know their movies. These are people who teach film. And if they like it, then I, as a mere pleb, can't argue with that.

Meh. You say you want a rebuttal to crush ... so crush away, me ol' flower, crush away. But what you won't crush is my love of this film and the people who made it. I think it is innovative, original and downright bloody interesting from a technical point of view, and it has been very well received by both general filmgoers and geeky film fans alike. Perhaps it is a film you either 'get' or 'don't get'. It's a visceral thing. Go see the film, but if you can't drag your weary bod out of your armchair then rent the DVD when it is released. Come back on here and let us know what you think. Then at least you can perhaps reach out beyond saying the trailer 'sucked' and dotting your comments with a pointless number of *beeps*.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

I just read over the comment I posted and I did come across as a little hauty and conceited, I agree. That was the liquor talking. I don't want to come across too harshly, but the idea of remakes makes my blood boil in the first place, and that the filmmakers decided to remake this really just got me mad. Or, once again, that might have been the liquor. I'm surprisingly complacent with the idea now. I do feel that this film didn't need to be made, and after watching the trailer a second time, I see that they have done a very good job of replicating the original, but that still doesn't impress me. Sorry. I see no reason why this film "needed" to be made. I really don't. That being said, I hope everyone out there who does watch it, especially those who haven't seen the original, enjoys it. I sure can't anymore.

On another note, I hate it when people write a review based on the premise of "I'm not even going to bother seeing this." I fell into my own trap on this thread. I guess that's just how much I hate the idea of pilfering other films.

"Good, bad. I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

And I'm sorry if I came across a wee bit sardonic. But then I'm an old biddy who enjoys poking people with pointy sticks now and again, and I take an unholy pleasure in it sometimes, which is naughty of me, I know. Put it down to age and world-weariness.

Anyway, I fully understand your point and I think on this we can amiably agree to disagree, and I certainly CAN agree on the majority of remakes - 'Get Carter' comes to mind *shudder*. No film needs to be remade - but an awful lot of films are remade, and very badly at that. This one just took my fancy and I love it. I think it is beautifully done, respectful, and very original in its own right, despite using much from the original film. It's a 'picking up the ball and running with it' thing for me.

It is just a matter of what floats one's boat, and it doesn't float yours - and you have your reasons, which I respect wholeheartedly.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

Wow. You're pretty much the only person on IMDB who has ever been amicable on a thread. Salutations to you, good person.

"Good, bad. I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Yer welcome! *executes clumsy curtsey - falls flat on butt*.

No point getting irate because others have a different view. Salutations to you too, dear writer - you're fun to chew the fat with, and you're reasoned and thoughtful too! Most excellent.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

Say, send me a personal message, I want a copy of the film. Sorry, I'm too cheap to buy it, and I know there's a few extra DVD's floating around your place. I'll see what I can do.

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Although I'm a nice, generously-minded soul who is more than happy to listen to other people's points of view, I am also a Scot, which means I'm a parsimonious old git. And even if I did have a DVD or five (which I don't, because it isn't out yet) I would very politely tell you to get your own. But I would do it with a smile.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

Cool. May the road rise to meet you and the wind be at your back (Hey, us Scots also like hand outs).

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Hey, us Scots also like hand outs

But then, y'see, that would defeat the object of getting you out of your chair and going to see the film. I'm also a canny Scot.

Man, I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals ...

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] cineast67 18 years ago

I got nothing other than some McLaren (heritage (which from what I hear is not the coolest of clans) and a good deal of pride. But it's good to hear from a clanny, I don't see a lot of those here in America. It's kind of weird.

But, as we say on this side of the "pond," take it easy. If it's really easy, take it twice.

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."

SHABOOM!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Adam_P_L 17 years ago

No, there's no way it can have "the same music" since the original was silent. Also, the story has been changed somewhat. (Basically a few sophomoric details have been added, and idiotic dialogue has been supplied.)

reply

[–] Azteca13 18 years ago

I so totally agree. They are going to ruin this amazing masterpiece. The original film is silent, you can't make a silent film in 2006!! And what would the dialouge be like?!?! It's just wrong.....

Dream like you're gonna live for ever.
Live like you'll die today. ~~Jimmy Dean~

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 18 years ago

Sigh.

1. The film isn't silent.

2. It isn't a 'copy' of the 1919 film. It does use the original settings from the film, but that's all.

3. How on earth can you judge a film you haven't seen? Until you've seen it, then your comments are mere conjecture. See the film then come on here and give a review, for better or worse. At least it will be an informed viewpoint, and that is all the film makers ask.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] Adam_P_L 17 years ago

re: point # 2, mizhelenuk, I'm afraid that this is a "copy" of the 1919 film. The same basic story is presented against the backdrop of the same sets. Poorly written dialogue has been supplied that adds nothing to the original story and merely serves to explicate in the most sophomoric and trite manner the basic themes of the original. I liked Daamen Kraal's performance as Caligari and thought that Doug Jones made a good Cesare, but all the other actors were so wooden that it was a tough movie to sit through.

Clearly a lot of work went into making it, and with a very small budget, but that doesn't change the fact that the final product is terrible. The director clearly has a good deal of contempt for the original, and really thought he was "improving" it by making this travesty. (I know this because I sat through a Q & A session with him in which he admitted that he finds the original "boring" and that he can't sit through it. He ridiculed several parts of the original story for "not making sense" and seemed very satisfied with himself for the "improvements" he made.) I urge every fan of the original film to stay far, far away from this remake.

reply

[–] mizhelenuk 17 years ago

Well, Adam P L, at least you've seen the film, unlike many other detractors on this board. I happen to disagree with you on your appraisal of this film, but, I have to say, it is a well-thought-out position and you are entitled to it. However, I would suggest that others see the film and make up their own minds. Oh, and the original film, for all of the regard and love I have for it, is hardly exciting by today's standards and is sometimes nonsensical. Many great films are just as flawed, even ground-breakers like DAS KABINETT DES DR CALIGARI. I'm afraid I don't keep it on the unattainable pedestal many film fans obviously think the film should inhabit. Doesn't stop me from loving the film, though, or David Fisher's version. Both of them 'float my boat' in a big way.

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/caligari.htm

reply

[–] Adam_P_L 17 years ago

Thanks for your response. I'd just like to reiterate that I really WANTED to like the film, and went into it with no preconceptions, save a love for the original. I bought tickets to the screening because of a positive review in the NY Times (so that's a point in the film's favor, I suppose).

I do disagree, however, that the original is "hardly exciting by today's standards." Perhaps at home, on DVD, with all the distractions that attend such a viewing experience, it might seem to drag. But my first exposure to the film was on the big screen at Cornell University when I was a teenager. The film was accompanied by live music by The Clubfoot Orchestra. It was honestly one of the most exciting cinematic experiences I've ever had.

Also, I don't necessarily think that the "nonsensical" bits in the original are flaws. It's a strange, surreal masterwork, and one of my problems with the new version is its attempt to create a more seamless story. However, all I think this does is make it more earthbound, pedestrian, and amateurish. Boring, one might even say. The descent into madness implicit in the original is perfect, I think, because the viewer is along for the ride, and the ending comes as a complete surprise. Whereas in this version, having Francis put a gun to his head and say, "Am I the one who's going crazy?" or something along those lines just cheapens the story and makes it more of a prosaic late-night horror flick.

And while I didn't like it, I was willing to at least credit the filmmakers for all the hard work they did until the Q & A session with David Lee Fisher (the director). If Fisher wants fans of the original to accept his version, he probably shouldn't openly ridicule the original for its flaws and brag about how he's improved it, and say he can't watch the original because he finds it boring. Like I said, many people would disagree, and besides, he should respect the original for--if nothing else--his film wouldn't exist without it!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jabberttp 13 years ago

The movie was pretty good. I don't know where all this b*tchin' about it is coming from.

How many people in 2011 watch movies from 1920? Not many. From 2005? Many. And it was a good story. Worth it for many newer generations to see it.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]