Knowing the film very well, having recently watched it again and reading the reviews here, I felt prompted to write a really objective review. That being said, I know that nobody can be objective, but I'll do my best. Let me precede with saying that I'm absolutely not the kind of person to dismiss old films quickly just because I view them with hindsighted, biased modern eyes. But this is a rather bad film, and even so from a 1960's point of view. One can not shake the feeling that this film has simply been canonized and granted diplomatic immunity just because it was directed by the great Fritz Lang. Sadly, the discussion of this film seems to have been reduced to this only factor: Its director. Yes, Lang WAS a great director for his time, but that does not mean that all of his films are great. This one is not good. Was it Lang's fault? I have my theory. If this film interests you, please read on, even if you're appalled by my pointing out of the film's shortcomings. I don't want to spoil my own review, but I don't think any of these weaknesses are Lang's fault. Here we go:
As usual, let's start with the redeeming qualities: The direction of the actors and the camera work is great for its time, the one noticeable set - the clairvoyant Cornelius' office - is really beautifully and imaginatively made, and Gert Fröbe and Peter van Eyck are simply great actors. With their style they easily meet current standards in acting (as they are mainly playing derivates of their real-life personalities, which in my opinion always has been a key to success, and never a bad thing anyway). Furthermore, Lang wanted to be critical of the not so long defunct Nazi regime, as wanted his producer Artur Brauner. One of the film's lesser mentioned manifestations in this regard are the allusions to Joseph Goebbels: The clubfooted Roberto Menil, the dog ...
But that seems to be about it. The film otherwise is full of inconstistencies and shortcomings that must not only have been noticed by modern film buffs, but also by people back then. What sets this film back? Here are the reasons that in my opinion make it impossible to call the film 'great'.
First of all, there is its whole scenic approach. One could say they wanted to create the feeling of an intimate play, but that can't be true, as some parts of the film desperately try to be grand - and fail. Most obvisously, there are no establishing shots whatsoever, and only very few wide shots, which are always what make a film grand. The single shot passing as an establisher is the face of the hotel, but even this one leaves one without any orientation or feeling of expanse. There are also no shots of contemporary Berlin, and very few outdoor shots. Exceptions are the murder in a car early on in the film, Travers picking up Cornelius, or the climactic car chase. But even those shots show no sign of largesse, nor do they provide a real sense of orientation - something that doesn't fit Lang.
And then there is the breaking down of scenes. Many of them are downright painful to watch, as again many times you are left alone without any orientation. One of the more obvious examples is the scene where Commissioner Kras is watching Travers and Cornelius leaving in their car - there's no shot of their car actually driving away. That would have been filmmaking one on one, even at the time. And why are there no more shots of Cornelius during the scene with the speaker phone in Kras' office? Why are there so few cutaways to people talking with other people? And so on. Re-watch it with open eyes and you will see what I mean. The film is full of such occurences. Even the partly cheesy German Edgar Wallace films of the period did better. Mostly.
And then there is the storyline's filmic execution. There are so many inonsistencies that it would by far exceed the scope of this review, but here are a few: At first, there are almost no foreshadowings whatsoever. The obvious question 'Who is Mabuse' is no big riddle, as there are only few characters introduced as possible culprits, or they die soon enough to be out of the loop. The only viable suspects are Cornelius and Professor Jordan (how lame is that, as they are both the culprit in the end), and a barely viable red herring is Mistelzweig, but that's about it. The big chance to establish Travers as a suspect has been missed. It's all too clear that he is a victim. Another annoying thing: Various characters die without ever getting an introduction, but stay important for the rest of the the film. At a certain point you simply give up and convince yourself that you are watching an intelligent murder-mystery, numbed by the fact that it's a Fritz Lang film.
And Mabuse's final reveal is so lame that it defies words. Professor Jordan simply taking off his beard and his wig - which doesn't change his looks much anyway - is a great disappointment at a point where you must long have figured out what's going on. And there is no payoff whatsoever to the realization that he's also Cornelius. The simple solution would have been to show Mabuse as Cornelius drop his mask, not as Jordan. But for some reason they didn't think of that. It's just one of the many missed chances in the film. In the end you even have to ask yourself why Cornelius as a character was even there. Why did Mabuse act as clairvoyant? He didn't use that persona for anything useful. Why doesen't he coerce Travers into anyting? He even saves Kras - first he places him in the deadly chair during the seance, then he warns him? It's never made clear why. I could go on and on.
OK, so the film is flawed. But let's cut to the chase: I can't believe that all of this was Lang's fault. He has proven time and time again that he knows about the things I so arrogantly point out as shortcomings here - he even helped establishing some of them as rules being taught at film school. So why this mediocre final result?
When watching the film closely, it's obvious that there's a very good film hidden in there somewhere, but circumstances must have prevented it from coming to light. Was it budget restraints? Producer interference? I've read somewhere that CCC's Artur Brauner was known for that, but I can't say for sure. I think it was both. There is a scene with Van Eyck at the hotel during the last act where the music just stops abruptly at the cut, which is a clear indication for the fact that a scene was cut even after picture lock and mixing. An indication that there was a scene there that we will never see. And this obviously couldn't have been the only one. Why is there no shot of Cornelius at the other end of the speaker phone? Because Preiss was not available anymore and they could use the voice artist that spoke Cornelius' voice (Siegfried Schürenberg in the German version). Why not shoot Traver's car leaving? Why not shoot Commissioner Kras watching Mabuse's car sinking to the bottom of the lake? Why not shoot countless establishers and counter shots? No time, no actors there, no money. For me, that's the only explanation.
As a result, the film has become so disjointed, so confusing, so full of missed opportunities and so full of Chekhov's Guns that it's a pity that it was the great Fritz Lang's last film.
I know it's no use giving a film two out of ten stars after everyone involved in it is dead and apparently there is nothing to be learned from. But so is giving a film ten stars when it's just not a ten star film. What's film critizising for anyway?
As usual, let's start with the redeeming qualities: The direction of the actors and the camera work is great for its time, the one noticeable set - the clairvoyant Cornelius' office - is really beautifully and imaginatively made, and Gert Fröbe and Peter van Eyck are simply great actors. With their style they easily meet current standards in acting (as they are mainly playing derivates of their real-life personalities, which in my opinion always has been a key to success, and never a bad thing anyway). Furthermore, Lang wanted to be critical of the not so long defunct Nazi regime, as wanted his producer Artur Brauner. One of the film's lesser mentioned manifestations in this regard are the allusions to Joseph Goebbels: The clubfooted Roberto Menil, the dog ...
But that seems to be about it. The film otherwise is full of inconstistencies and shortcomings that must not only have been noticed by modern film buffs, but also by people back then. What sets this film back? Here are the reasons that in my opinion make it impossible to call the film 'great'.
First of all, there is its whole scenic approach. One could say they wanted to create the feeling of an intimate play, but that can't be true, as some parts of the film desperately try to be grand - and fail. Most obvisously, there are no establishing shots whatsoever, and only very few wide shots, which are always what make a film grand. The single shot passing as an establisher is the face of the hotel, but even this one leaves one without any orientation or feeling of expanse. There are also no shots of contemporary Berlin, and very few outdoor shots. Exceptions are the murder in a car early on in the film, Travers picking up Cornelius, or the climactic car chase. But even those shots show no sign of largesse, nor do they provide a real sense of orientation - something that doesn't fit Lang.
And then there is the breaking down of scenes. Many of them are downright painful to watch, as again many times you are left alone without any orientation. One of the more obvious examples is the scene where Commissioner Kras is watching Travers and Cornelius leaving in their car - there's no shot of their car actually driving away. That would have been filmmaking one on one, even at the time. And why are there no more shots of Cornelius during the scene with the speaker phone in Kras' office? Why are there so few cutaways to people talking with other people? And so on. Re-watch it with open eyes and you will see what I mean. The film is full of such occurences. Even the partly cheesy German Edgar Wallace films of the period did better. Mostly.
And then there is the storyline's filmic execution. There are so many inonsistencies that it would by far exceed the scope of this review, but here are a few: At first, there are almost no foreshadowings whatsoever. The obvious question 'Who is Mabuse' is no big riddle, as there are only few characters introduced as possible culprits, or they die soon enough to be out of the loop. The only viable suspects are Cornelius and Professor Jordan (how lame is that, as they are both the culprit in the end), and a barely viable red herring is Mistelzweig, but that's about it. The big chance to establish Travers as a suspect has been missed. It's all too clear that he is a victim. Another annoying thing: Various characters die without ever getting an introduction, but stay important for the rest of the the film. At a certain point you simply give up and convince yourself that you are watching an intelligent murder-mystery, numbed by the fact that it's a Fritz Lang film.
And Mabuse's final reveal is so lame that it defies words. Professor Jordan simply taking off his beard and his wig - which doesn't change his looks much anyway - is a great disappointment at a point where you must long have figured out what's going on. And there is no payoff whatsoever to the realization that he's also Cornelius. The simple solution would have been to show Mabuse as Cornelius drop his mask, not as Jordan. But for some reason they didn't think of that. It's just one of the many missed chances in the film. In the end you even have to ask yourself why Cornelius as a character was even there. Why did Mabuse act as clairvoyant? He didn't use that persona for anything useful. Why doesen't he coerce Travers into anyting? He even saves Kras - first he places him in the deadly chair during the seance, then he warns him? It's never made clear why. I could go on and on.
OK, so the film is flawed. But let's cut to the chase: I can't believe that all of this was Lang's fault. He has proven time and time again that he knows about the things I so arrogantly point out as shortcomings here - he even helped establishing some of them as rules being taught at film school. So why this mediocre final result?
When watching the film closely, it's obvious that there's a very good film hidden in there somewhere, but circumstances must have prevented it from coming to light. Was it budget restraints? Producer interference? I've read somewhere that CCC's Artur Brauner was known for that, but I can't say for sure. I think it was both. There is a scene with Van Eyck at the hotel during the last act where the music just stops abruptly at the cut, which is a clear indication for the fact that a scene was cut even after picture lock and mixing. An indication that there was a scene there that we will never see. And this obviously couldn't have been the only one. Why is there no shot of Cornelius at the other end of the speaker phone? Because Preiss was not available anymore and they could use the voice artist that spoke Cornelius' voice (Siegfried Schürenberg in the German version). Why not shoot Traver's car leaving? Why not shoot Commissioner Kras watching Mabuse's car sinking to the bottom of the lake? Why not shoot countless establishers and counter shots? No time, no actors there, no money. For me, that's the only explanation.
As a result, the film has become so disjointed, so confusing, so full of missed opportunities and so full of Chekhov's Guns that it's a pity that it was the great Fritz Lang's last film.
I know it's no use giving a film two out of ten stars after everyone involved in it is dead and apparently there is nothing to be learned from. But so is giving a film ten stars when it's just not a ten star film. What's film critizising for anyway?