MUBI

In all of Von Sternberg, aesthetic worth is not irreconsible with the films content, but rather married to it. This film, 1934’s “The Scarlet Empress” is the most obvious and extreme example of this in Von Sternberg’s work. The decor of the Russian court, filled with images of torture and Byzentine paintings, both cause and reflect the savage personality which would become the woman known as Catherine the Great. She must retaliate against this, to prove her own autonomy, and in the process loses her own humanity. She lives in a world where upon her first kiss she is presented with a whip to punish the man who has kissed her, and by that same man. Already, as a child, Catherine is refused the right to play with toys and has an operation performed on her by “the local hangman.” Von Sternberg himself dissolves from a man being tortured by swinging back and forth within a bell to the 15-year old Catherine, playing on a swing in her garden.

So much of the early close-up’s in the film focus on Catherine looking, discovering the world around her. She falls in love immediately upon meeting the Count Alexi, but puppy love is not permitted within this world. He lies while professing love to her, because of his “duty to his country”. Just prior to her marraige, the reigning queen says “We women are too much creatures of the heart, arn’t we Catherine?” Catherine solmnly replies, “Yes, your Majesty.”

Perhaps the most extrodinary sequence in this film is the wedding sequence, done entirely without dialouge. Rarely have close-ups been so powerful. The elouqent pleading of Marlene Dietrich’s eyes is one of the most striking expressions of longing within the cinema. In the words of Robin Wood, " the physical reality of her breath as the candle before her mouth repeatedly wavers and is almost extinguished: the effect is like watching the quickened beating of her heart."

Interestingly, here the mask or the veil have a slightly different meaning than they did in Morocco or Shanghai Express. In those films Marlene Dietrich unconciously hid her face away to hide the fragility of her heart and soul. Here, she is anything but unconcious. She understands that she is fragile, and re-creates her social atmosphere rather than have her life be narrated by others. She understands the power that a mysterious woman holds over a man, and thus her sexual dominance becomes power. Again, to refer to Robin Wood, “The culmination is one of Hollywood’s most ambiguous and devastating happy endings: the heroine triumphs over all adversity – at the expense of her humanity, and perhaps her sanity.”

The Scarlet Empress is the first film I’ve seen by Josef von Sternberg, and I’m impressed. I found out that not only did he do the cinematography on many of his films – he also edited, did costumes and arranged the music as well. Not bad. ‘The Scarlet Empress’ is so self-confident in its highly stylized nightmare presentation of the 19th century Russian Royal Court, it reminded me of Eisenstein’s ‘Ivan The Terrible’ films. These films share and master quite well such cinematic devices as rapid montage (russian people in hysteria) and (majestic and intense) close-ups of royal personalities. I think Sternberg differs from Eisenstein when it comes to light, as the close-ups of Marlene Dietrich (Catherine The Great), John Lodge (Capt. Alexi) and Sam Jaffe (Grand Duke Peter) are often glowing with overexposed light and shot with layers of textures (veils, curtains, nets and windows) rather than left in the dark (as partially as the rest of his horrifying set pieces). Eisenstein’s story of Ivan is perhaps wider in scope and a darker one. His use of space is more vast and his shadow play are much more complicated than displayed in Sternberg’s Russian affair.

When I come to think of it, I’ve almost never seen Marlene Dietrich in a film before (only in a small part of ‘Touch of Evil’).
She is without doubt, a very talented actress playing vastly contrasted sides of the same ‘innocent’ princess in some of the most beautiful close-ups I’ve seen of a woman. After being forced to marry the Russian Duke across the border, Sophia of Germany becomes Catherine, wife of a disgusting, possessive, power-hungry lunatic whose nothing of the sort she had in mind. Sam Jaffe’s charachter is truly repulsive, as opposed to John Lodge’s masculine Capt. Alexi (with many great pick-up lines btw) who becomes so desperate after Catherine, this is really the most intriguing thing about the film.

I like that the staging of the film constantly mixes innocence with bestiality. Its sometimes very apparent, but it works! There’s a scene where Alexi tries to seduce Cathrine in a barn. Alexi and Catherine shares a tight mastershot together, each of them using up the half of the frame. Alexi is dressed in his dark military costume facing her in a white dress. When he finally can’t wait any longer, he embraces her – his broad back blocking her completely from us. We don’t know how she will react, since up to this point, she’s been rejecting him constantly. Forbidden love? Of course, she can’t resist him anymore, as her slender arm slowly starts to glide across his back ‘till she’s in profile again, giving in to his seduction. I think Sternberg’s timing in this scene (which is not interrupted by any cuts) is elegantly well executed. The scene ends with Catherine running out in fear of being caught, but this game between a boy and a girl is not finished.

I think the film owes a lot to the gothic, grotesque and bombastic scenography of the castle where most of the story is set.
The atmosphere is eerie, something is not right for the most part. Catherine is in many ways trapped in her royal position, surrounded by enormous doors, devilish statues of tormented Christ-figures and big burning dripping candles. The Grand Duke’s psychopathic mother have spies all over the place so that privacy is almost impossible. Each shot of the castle’s huge interiors bears this prison-like intensity, and throughout the first half of the film, both human and sexual repression is apparently all over the place treated with great effect by Sternberg. After having watched the film, I remember how the vivid opening sequence ends with a shocking brutal torture montage that spins away the disillusion of a spoiled young woman (the maid reads her Ivan The Terrible). Luckily, The Scarlet Empress came out before the Code sensor was applied in Hollywood.

What a wonderful film!

It’s quite ridiculous,fun, dramatic and crazily elating all at the same time. You’d never expect such a mixture in a biopic about the rise of Catherine the Great. Then again, in the first few minutes, Von Sternberg has abandoned the premises of traditional biopic: this is wish-fullfillment par-excellence. It’s pretty clear that this isn’t Catherine, the famous empress, but Marlene Dietrich decked out in sexy furs and crazy outfits to accentuate her beauty. In fact, you’ll never see another movie where the camera (and to an extent, the director) is so enamored with her face. There’s a memorable scene where all we see is the hazy, dreamy portrait of Dietrich’s face, a satin veil slightly obscuring her, eyes roving the screen. It’s unforgettable and you realize suddenly that this scene has absolutely no importance to the story. It’s literally star worship in its purest form. And you know what? That’s fine. that’s great.
The rest of the film is so well-crafted and beautifully done (and in such a capricious way as well!) that you don’t mind any of it.
Von Sternberg also seems to have a hilarious sense of humor, one that ranges from slapstick, burlesque, satire, to the lurid and risque.
One memorable joke is where Catherine/Sophia is first kissed by the count Alexi. She asks, bewildered, “Why did you do that?” He responds, of course, by saying, “Because I love you! Now punish me!” he declares, thrusting his whip into her arms, grinning wildly.
Wait a minute, did Von sternberg just both do parody AND S&M joke in the same scene? It gets more steamy with suggestive camera angles, suggestive dialogue, suggestive glances and more suggestive words than even the soppiest and sleaziest romance novel. Not that this is a bad thing in Sternberg land. Anyways, you’ll probably get caught up in the massive decor and clearly fantasy inspired historic/german expressionistic set design. Really, what castle anywhere, let alone russia, has piles and piles of wax statues, candles sprouting out of the bodies, depicting massive tableauxs of twisted Jesus, face-palming priests, grinning gargoyles and gigantic angels for no apparent reason? They pretty much line the railings and balconies, like its mandatory for all castles to be de-facto gothic/crazy. But it really enhances the rather fantastic and droll tone of the film.
Is it a biopic? a comedy? a satire? a parody? a straight-up romance? a drama? well, yes and no. It’s more of cinema in pure form, you know, ‘pure cinema’. All the cliches, rules, joys, quirks and elements of cinema in general are on display here.
All the more impressive when you think about how involved Sternberg was in the production. He also shot the film, a feat rarely tackled, even now. I should say, the film’s look and cinematography is gorgeous, like God touched every frame, making the whites and silvers glisten with a thousand lightbulbs, and the blacks blacker than indian ink. This is not only glamorous photography, it’s simply brilliant photography in all accoutns. textures, faces, shadows, lights, the way the image moves; it’s breathtaking.
Granted, you’ll laugh a lot at the deliberately hammy performances and craziness, but ride along with it! It’s really rewarding.

On a side note, you can really see where Sofia coppola was influenced by in her film Marie Antoinette. There’s even a sly homage to the Scarlet empress when Marie Antoinette gives birth to a son (like Sternberg, Coppola has the scene play out suggestively, with a miraculous swell of bells filling the soundtrack, a canned crowd roaring in rapture. It works in both films, though the purposes are ultimately different.

Dietrich and Lodge in the stable. Dietrich holding on to a rope. Dietrich lets go of the rope and lays on a pile of hay. Lodge lays down beside her. She puts a straw of hay in her mouth. Lodge removes it. She puts another straw in her mouth. Lodge removes it. She put another straw in her mouth. And so on. And don’t forget Dietrich inspecting the troops. And Jaffe playing with his toys. And the torture scene montage at the begining.

I posted a review of this film to my blog: http://criterionreflections.blogspot.com/2009/03/scarlet-empress-1934-109.html

A quote: (Marlene Dietrich) is far and away the big star here, the main attraction around whom all the other performers are mere accessories. I can’t say for sure whether this is Dietrich’s ultimate role but it seems like it could be. She rivets the camera when she’s on screen and what other scripts of the time could have offered her a stronger “empowered woman” performance opportunity? Actually, the film is a portrayal of how she got to that position of absolute power, not so much her exercise of it later in life (and I am skeptical as to how historically accurate it is, which really is beside the point in this film anyway.) So I suppose she could have been cast in a role where she is just dominant from start to finish, which is not the case here. But I don’t think that would have been as sexy as the transformation we get to observe in The Scarlet Empress.