Film Review: Faust

"Faust" *** 1\2 (out of ****)

It might sound cliche but movies like "Faust" (1926) are the reason I watch movies. It is amazing but, here is a movie made in 1926 and I'm stunned while I watch it. The amount of creativity and imagination that went into this movie nearly leaves me speechless. In today's age of computer generated effects, where just about anything is possible, that is quite a compliment for "Faust". That a film nearly 80 years old has such power is a testament to what kind of magnificent film this really is.

The film was directed by F.W. Murnau. One of the great directors of German expressionism, that I have not reviewed until now. "Faust" was his final film made in Germany before coming to America. And what a film. Some say "Faust" surpasses "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920) as the greatest film of the expressionist movement.

Knowing that I had to eventual review something by Murnau, I was caught in an odd predicament. What exactly do I review first? What is the best film to start your collection with? The reason I find that question so difficult is because every film I've seen by Murnau is a masterpiece. It really doesn't make a difference where you start, just make sure you watch his movies. I couldn't tell you which is his best. All of his film have impressive visuals, strong acting and amazing craft. Muranu was one of the great directors of silent cinema. His most popular film might be "Sunrise" (1927) his first American movie. Or maybe it is "Nosferatu" (1922), believed by many to be one of the greatest vampire movies of all time. And still there is "The Last Laugh" (1924), perhaps the most emotional and heartbreaking of his films. It is hard to say. All of these films are equally important to your cinematic viewing and to the history of cinema.

So why did I decide to start with "Faust"? Because I have recently watched this film and now seemed like just as good as any time to discuss one of his films.

The most impressive thing about the film is the visuals. Roger Ebert, in his "Great Movies" review, spends half of his time discussing how the visuals came to be. And it is true, those moments are an example of Murnau's and his cinematographer, Carl Hoffman's artistic vision. Watching the beginning moments I sat there like a child with eyes wide open trying to digest everything I saw.

Take for example a scene where Mephisto and the Archangel meet and make their wager. Or when Mephisto hovers over the town and drops the plague. Other impressive scenes include Faust flying on Mephisto's cape. And everything is slightly tilted, slightly off shape. Just a little twisted as Muranu has created this nightmare for us. The ultimate battle between good and evil.

I don't know how many of my readers are familiar with the Faust legend, but the story goes something like this. Faust (Gosta Ekman) is a scientist who is tormented that he is unable to find a way to stop the plague which is ravaging a small town. He prays endlessly for God to bestow upon him the ability to find a cure. But it is not to be.

Meanwhile Mephisto (Emil Jannings) has come to claim Earth but the Archangel (Werner Fuetter) stops him. They make a wager. If Mephisto can turn one soul against goodness, the Earth shall be Mephisto's. The Archangel agrees. The soul they decide upon his Faust.

After a failed attempt to help a dying woman Faust looses faith in everything, God and science. It seems as if nothing will be able to stop the plague. Faust goes to his home to burn all of his books. If a man of his intellect cannot find a cure, all is lost. He even burns his bible. At this point he notices a passage on how to call upon the devil. He retrieves the bible from the burning flames and heads to a crossroad to summons Mephisto.

Mephisto promises to help Faust feed the poor and cure the sick all in exchange for his soul. At first Faust is afraid to make the bargain so they agree on a trial run. For one day Mephisto will agree to let Faust have all his powers after which their agreement will be broken. And so it is agreed. Faust tries to do good by the people of the town, but, when one dying woman has a holy cross in her hand, Faust is unable to look her in the eye. The townspeople fear Faust is in league with the devil and stone him out of town.

Here is where the film looses some impact on me. Rejected from the town, Mephisto tells Faust why doesn't he seek out pleasure and enjoy himself. Mephisto will give Faust back his youth. What I don't understand is why doesn't Faust make a greater effort to help the townspeople? After all, his soul is on the line. That was why he sold himself to the devil in the first place. I would have also liked the irony of a man using the power of the devil to help people. Talk about a contradiction!

When Mephisto makes Faust young again they travel to his hometown where he meets Gretchen (Camilla Horn). He falls in love with her at first sight. Now the film becomes almost a comedy of manners. In some ways it reminded me of the Ingmar Bergman little seen masterpiece "The Devil's Eye" (1960). Now Faust and Mephisto use their powers to make Gretchen fall in love with him.

The scenes where we see the townspeople go into a panic remind me very much of Carl Theodor Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928). "Faust" was released first so I wonder if Dreyer ever saw this film. "Faust" ends with a burning stake. As the plague turns everyone into religious fanatics. Even these moments can mesmerize the viewer with their beauty.

Of all the actors in the film the only one I am aware of his Emil Jannings. He and Murnau worked together on "The Last Laugh" and Jannings also had a memorable role in "The Blue Angel" (1930) with Marlene Dietrich. In both movies Jannings plays a man who looses his dignity. Here of course he is all powerful.

The acting in the movie is done in the style most of today's audiences might find over dramatic with the wild expressions. But I have to say, I found it to be appropriately dramatic. The actors didn't seem to be expressing too much to me. Their acting made the movie feel more epic. It almost gives the movie more weight.

It is sad to think F.W. Murnau didn't live a longer life. Try to imagine what other pleasures he had in store of us. He died in 1931, never able to take advantage of the sound medium. His only sound film and his final film was "Tabu" (1931) released right after his death. Some of his work is even believed to be lost; his first film "The Blue Boy" (1919) and "4 Devils" (1928) among them. But at least we have some of his treasures available.

Is "Faust" Murnau's best work? As I said before I honestly don't know what his best film would be. I will say this however. "Faust" is a darker story than "Nosferatu" and I think more technically innovative than "Sunrise". While the movie may possibly be interpreted as hopeful, it goes through a lot of suffering to get to that conclusion.

As for not putting this in my "Masterpiece Film Series", well, it is not included on a technicality. It meets my requirements. It is a fresh and bold film which does inspire me and motive me. It is one of the great movies I have seen. And it was made in the right time period. But, I only recently did an entry into the series and I'm a creature of order. So I didn't want to break my own rules. Still, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I have written about the movie. I have brought it to your attention and hopefully those that haven't seen it will seek it out. Make no mistake about it, "Faust" is a brilliant, innovative film. All film lovers should see it.