THE FIRST TRUE HORROR MOVIE | Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 фев 2020
- 🎉🎉 Support Why It’s Great for exclusive access to original music and new Patron-Only Podcast! 🎉🎉 ▶️ / whyitsgreat
Exactly 100 years ago, on February 26th, 1920, the world’s first TRUE horror movie debuted in Germany. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. This silent film is widely considered to be the quintessential work of the German Expressionist Cinema. By Analyzing the best films from the past, we can learn more about films in our present. So here’s why The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is one of the Greatest Films in History.
______________________
LISTEN TO OUR PODCAST, THE PROFESSIONAL APPRECIATORS:
SPOTIFY:open.spotify.com/show/5qUmnw1...
APPLE:podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
📬💌 Join our mailing list: bit.ly/whygreatemail
_____________________
🎵MUSIC🎵
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Soundtrack - Alfredo Antonini
Become a patron to download and license these tracks.
▶️ / whyitsgreat
____________________
📱Connect with us on Social Media 🔽
📸 / whyitsgreat1
📘 / whyitsgreat1
🐦 / dandrake333
🖥 DanDrake333.com/
_____________________
PATRONS
- Steven Webster
- Jacob Trexler
- Pat Werths
- Jacob Wieneman
- Aaron Hanson
- Chris Link
- Chris Nelson
- George Levin
- Kent Sanders 
Кино
I think the actual quote is "We Queens are not free to answer the call of the heart". Her delusion is she believes she is a Queen. Hence the throne like chair and why she actually said that.
Somnnabulist is just another word for sleepwalker. Dr. Caligari isn't the somnambulist, Cesare is.
I want to talk about Werner Krauss as Caligari. he is without a doubt, the best actor in this movie. outside of the set design, the isolated shots of Caligari smiling are in my opinion are the most unsettling and surreal parts of the film. his expressions are very exaggerated, very detailed. the light emphasizing his wide, unblinking eyes, the shadows contrasting with his devilish grin, and the heavy texture on his face bringing out his more subtle facial features adds to dreamlike creepiness of the character of Caligari. that is silent film acting at its absolute best.
I'm just going to sit in a corner and excuse how incredibly obsessed I am with Veidt's role as Cesare because my bias is super heavy
Hello from germany. The „cabinet“ in the title doesn't mean the box. The cabinet is his booth on the fair, an old name for an exhibition. The word remains in german in „Gruselkabinett“ (written nowadays with k and double-t), that means „horror chamber“.
So would a proper translation of the name be The Horrifying Exhibition of Dr. Caligari?
@@hotelroom404 I like the translation. Horrifying Exhibition is a very good translation of Gruselkabinett (old: Grusel-Cabinet). Grusel means horror, but since there’s no horror mentioned in the title, maybe the best translation would be „The Exhibition of Dr. Caligari“. Wait, Cabinet is not really an Exhibition itself, it’s more the room, where an Exhibition takes place. Unlike a museum it’s a single room… 🤔
Anyway, your translation is on point 👍
@@magadag Using Google Translate, gruselkabinett comes back as ‘chamber of horrors’, so it would make sense to call it something along the lines of Dr. Caligari’s Chamber of Terror
@@hotelroom404 That’s a very good translation 👍 I never asked myself, why they didn’t translate the word, I thought it was the same in english until I came to this video. And I have learned that it can be so misunderstood.
Maybe there was a forgotten different meaning of Cabinet in english in the 1920s?
@@magadag I looked it up and apparently the word cabinet used to refer to any small, private room
Vignettes were often used in the era for close-ups (and sometimes to establish POV). Really early on it started as a side-effect of the lense type and the distance of the lens from the film slate (particularly in photography) but became a stylistic device. It was a preferred method for portrait photography so maybe it came to be a sort of shorthand for intimacy, directing your eye to the centre of the frame and involving the spectator with the character as if they were a loved in a locket etc.
As for the look of the film - they were given the smallest studio the film company had to shoot the film. A lot of the forced perspective came about from the physical restrictions they were working under. They were also only given 1/2 the money they had asked for to make the film. In being after the war, silver nitrate was very expensive and hard to procure. They cut the film development time down in order to stretch the material they had. This led to a lot of the look of the film. It is amazing that such a (now) classic film was made with such restrictions. I think it led to a lot of why this film is the film it is today.
You guys make extremely high quality and informative videos.... Now all you guys need, is a viral video and you'll be all set.... But seriously... Hats off to your content and you guys..... 👌🏻
Thank you so much! I appreciate that. 😀
Great review!
Important to note, though, is that what Jane actually says is, "Us QUEENS are not free to answer the call of our hearts". It's important to note this since it adds an extra layer of delusion to Jane's character and explains the her sitting on the throne. Why she was provided with a throne is a "who knows?" moment. I think it's also important to note the Queen aspect because it does slightly punch a hole in the totalitarian government theory, since it is not "we are not free" where the "we" signifies the normal people, but rather "we Queens are not free" which is far removed from the populist notion of "we the people".
Like I said though, great vid!
Excellent observation. I also disagree with the totalitarian interpretation.
Old comment, but I think this quote is really interesting because it emphasizes the fact that Jane is continuously faced with the illusion of choice and lack of autonomy throughout the film. She's offered a choice between Francis and Alan, but Alan dies- and we never even see her express any preference for anyone in the story. Francis calls her his "fiancee," but she never actually agrees to this. Within the narrative, she's allowed some agency when she goes to investigate her father's disappearance, but then is punished for it by being kidnapped. I think the most fascinating thing about her is that she's actually a very similar character to Cesare- both are objectified, both by the other characters and by the camera. We see them both try to diverge from their respective narrative roles of "damsel" and "monster", only to be punished by having to act out those roles upon each other, harming each other in the process. They are spectacles who are made to look and be looked at. Most interestingly, they share the theme of the connection between names and identity- Caligari forces Cesare's role upon him through renaming him, defining who "Cesare" is through his relationship to "Caligari". And Francis wants to marry Jane, and would therefore be changing her last name to his- and her role in the story as the object of desire. However, Jane rejects him in the end, subverting the narrative idea that the "hero" "gets the girl." One can argue that we perceive Francis as "insane" in the end because Jane and Cesare are shown acting in ways outside of how he perceives them, therefore reframing the narrative.
Helped with my cinema homework!
My favorite film!
I think that one important detail that, at the very beginning, can tell us that the main protagonist is actually a madman is his companion who sits besides him - he tells him that he sees spirits.
After that we see a main protagonist's girlfriend walking in a disturbed, sleepwalking matter (brilliant scene itself). So we can assume that a place where they are speaking is not really a common, everyday place.
And if a main protagonist is in company with two strange people, we can guess that he is somehow strange too.
Also, main protagonists is overdoing with his reactions, he is always at a very intense state of mind, he lacks control. Usually, main characters are the stable ones.
At the beginning of a movie i thought that he is probably just acting by popular standards of that time. But at the end, i thought that his constant exciteness actually tells us about some sort of nerve disorder, paranoia...
I love staring at the backgrounds and sets
I find the naming if Cesare to be interesting. Julius Caesar, one of the most powerful men to ever live, so powerful that his name has become almost synonymous with Emperor and Empires; the Russian Tsars were named after him and more importantly so were the German kings, the Kaisers. Hence I believe Cesare from the cabinet (coffin) is a metaphor of the authority (Dr Caligari is the establishment) is using the death of the Kaisers to tell the future to the public. "Come one, come all, ask the dead king what the future has in store for us."
5:08 note that even though the film (together with Nosferatu) set the standard for this kind of shadow-murder imagery, it was not inventing it as there were similar set ups used in stage plays for ages already. It was merely the first time they transferred it from stage to film, I wouldn't necessarily call it 'ahead of its time' for that reason. On the timeline of just cinema it stands out because Hollywood horror took a much more conservative approach in imagery and thus delayed the adaption of this trope a lot (basically until Hitch' took it upon himself to reintroduce much of these in his neo-Horror work).
I 100% agree, one of the best films ever made. Even today, there's nothing like it, and nothing that tops it. An important film that should not be overlooked. Very cool review, man. Bob. G
Came back to watch this video in its entirety. I watched the film years ago and i absolutely loved it, I adore seeing how much horror films have changed throughout the decades and this was truly the first horror film. I like German silent films but don't watch them a lot, this one I did. My family think I'm weird for watching these types of films haha but to each their own.
this movie reminded me of shutter island
No mention of the fact that the ending described here is actually one imposed on the filmmakers by the production company.
The original ending shows the Director as insane, obsessed with Caligari and somnambulism. At the time, Germany being what it was, the production company didn’t want to show an authority figure behaving this way, so they instead depicted Francis as the person who is deluded. And the Director as his salvation, so to speak.
I like the Director as an insane whackjob much better, personally!
Citation needed.
This seems like something made up after the fact to fit in a neat narrative, I'm sorry but how is Weimar Germany and especially its film and art industry at all being influenced by an authoritarian regime that ruled some 10 years later? Not to mention this makes zero sense when juxtaposed with the beginning which clearly portrays all three persons in it as whack jobs.
Excellent analysis! Greetings and appreciation from Germany!
You got a new subscriber for being so spot on in your review. Never seen this movie, but even knowing now the end, I’m still gonna watch it.
This is fantastic. Thank you for producing and sharing.
ive seen several videos on Caligari, and youve really done an excellent job of highlighting how beautiful it really is
We were assigned to watch this movie for my film class and I'm really glad I came across this video and your channel to help me! Thank you for this! I'll be sure to watch more of your videos soon
seeing this after seeing the film. wow so true.
Went down an internet rabbit hole and ended up here. I’m glad I did!
While this video itself is now two years old, I came seeking some food for thought after viewing the film. Tonight, I watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for the first time. I was incredibly fortunate to see this film with a live accompaniment from the Pipe Organ performed by Dr. Filip Presseisen, who expertly improvised his score for the entirety of the film. I cannot express how much I enjoyed the experience and how much I now love this film. It was beyond a doubt revolutionary for its time, and I have been eager to hear what others thought of it. Thank you very much for this review and additional context. This is a film that is going to be in my mind for a long time. Even today, it's still very effective and suspenseful; A testament to the talents involved in its production.
Amazing review and analysis!!!
What an amazing analysis!👏🏻
Great analysis 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 deep description and good intuitions
Thanks a bunch for the explanation
I love this movie. Amazing masterpiece. The story, set, the atmosphere is so delicately woven together than any other movie ever. That's why this movie and Metropolis has a special place in my heart.
great video essay. liked and subscribed.
Such a cool analysis. The last 5 minutes are great.
One of the best films. Love Conrad Veidt 🖤🖤🖤🖤👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
This was so helpful......Big up!
TIMELESS!!
How do you not have more views and subscribers? You’re making amazing content, keep it up man.
Thank you so much. I don’t really know, honestly. YT algorithm just hasn’t “hit” yet. But I’m going to keep making videos.
Very interesting, thank you! But for myself I found another interpretation of this story:
Francis is a shizophrenic man, who is living in a lunatic asylum, because he murdered some people (for example Alan and Janes father). Cesare is not a real existing person, he is the "other personality" Francis created in is shizophrenic mind. Dr. Caligary really is the director of the lunatic asylum and a harmless and honest man - its just Francis` mad fantasy, thats creates the story and made himself really belief in this.
About Jane I`m not absolutely sure. There are 2 possibilities: 1: She`s just another patient in this asylum, Francis never had seen her before, fall "in love" with her and imaginated the hole story. Or 2: He really knewed her before, was fallen in his brainsick "love" and terrorised her as a stalker - and so he made her going crazy. But at the end he had been sucessfull: His "bride" is captured at him. For the rest of her life she will live "together" with him!
Please pardon my not elegant english - but I think it is good enough, for you to understand what I want to say. I would be very happy when you send me an answer! "Caligari" is one of the best films I`ve ever seen - and these are not many! I never found someone for really discussing about! You give me new hope for this!
Som- nam- byu- list and Chez- array are how you pronounce somnambulist and Cesare.
Very great video. I hople you'll get the well-deserved recognition.
Thank you!
I’ve read where Der Golem (1915) was the first true horror movie.
I don't get the totalitarianism bent that many analysees of the movie apply. It's too shady for my taste.
After all, the whole Caligari-persona was dreamt up by Francis in his manic state because he is a mental patient that sees a threat in the staff of the asylum. He projects all these things onto his doctor, dreaming up this tale in which he also places other patients like Caesar and Jane.
Also, in 1920, Germany was not and had not been a totalitarian society and, although the Weimar republic faced enormous issues at the time, no one knew for certain where it was headed and certainly no one could have forseen the horrors that were to come a decade later. Remember, mustache-man was still pretty much a nobody that held speeches in the backrooms of cheap bars in Munich at the time.
I know interpretation is a free for all and there is some symbolism with the towns clerk on that high chair for example... But I really think the whole totalitarian angle just came into it because it's a good movie BUT from Germany in 1920 so it HAD TO have some form of favorable political message. I don't know. As I said, it's too far reaching for me. I see it as more of a psychological thing than a sociological or political thing going on in the film. Sort of like the french surrealists that were obsessed with dream interpretations and Freud.
Thank you so much. I teach history and this is exactly what I thought.
I agree, I feel like people are digging too deep into something simply because of when and where it comes from and because of the artsy presentation. To me, it seems more about perception and identity.
I saw this in an Honorable Mentions section of a Demented Pictures video on movies with twist endings. Thought I might check it out.
Thanks bro cuz I haven’t had the chance to embrace the movie 🤘🏻😎
I watched it last night not knowing it was the first horror film! It was absolutely and amazing movie! 🖤 truely thrilling! thanks for the video!
Very cool!
It's Such a Great Movie, i want Batman TAS to make an Episode like this Movie and use these Technic of this Movie.
Vignettes were used by Griffith in BIRTH OF A NATION, (1915) and showing violent behavior with shadows was used by Cecil B. DeMille in THE CHEAT (1915). So both of these concept had been used for at least four years.
The sheer masterpiece
What a masterpiece that also at that time
personally, I think Francis and Alan letting Jane pick who she wants to marry, is much more decent of them than, say, demanding she marry one or the other with force.
Great video! Also, where are you watching this film, it looks so crisp in this video!
Looks like a blu ray rip to me, Eureka released a restored blu ray as part of their masters of cinema series a few years ago :)
One of the best analysis. Great 👌
Conrad Veidt, an absolute legend in cinema: just check out "The Man Who Laughs" or his role as Jaffar in "The Thief of Bagdad", and yes, Disney's Jaffar is an homage to him.
It's almost 100 years for this film
The shadows during the murder were necesscary because the day's morality wouldn't allow such a visual brutal murder to be seen on screen
How did this film survive through the ages?
I'm not sure exactly how copies survived this long. But this video talks a little bit about the restoration process. ruclips.net/video/r0YNoCenfeU/видео.html
The footage you used is beautiful. Where can I find it? I love this film but I can really only find a very low quality version of it.
Can you do a video about Tim Burton and his use of German expressionism?
Preach
Interesting. I enjoyed your comments about early film making. Be aware however that the totalitarian interpretation of this movie comes from over 20 years in the future. The first theories of totalitarianism are still 3 years in the future in 1920. Cults of personality have not started yet. Lenin was in power but even he didn't cultivate a cult of personality at this point. The Italian fascists were still a tiny left wing party that had not started it's swing to the right yet. The nazi party was only founded the month the movie came out and it's predecessor still had under 100 members. Hitler was still a nobody giving his very first speeches while this movie was being filmed. This movie is more likely about the dehumanization of WW1 as the screenwriters were pacifists drafted into the German army. The depiction of the police and officials on high chairs are more likely a look back at the Prussian civil and military bureaucracy of the war and prewar years rather then a look forward. You are correct however that the seeds of totalitarianism were already there as totalitarianism grew out of a wistful look back at the rapid economic "progress" that was made under war communism during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922) vs the supposed loss of revolutionary zeal of the Soviet NEP program of 1921-8. In Western Europe the romantic look back to the early mobilization of nations for WW1 was also already present. To say the the screen writers in 1918 and 1919 had already deduced a totalitarian future appears premature to me. If you are commenting on how a true work of art can and does get reinterpreted by succeeding generations then you are absolutely correct. It is perfectly valid. I just find it hard to believe anyone in this period of euphoria for socialism and communism among German working class would already be predicting the 1930s. I would have to spend a lot more time thinking about it.
M.J. C. thinking “the left” is the problem when the president just abolished the CDC publishing data about the ongoing pandemic is rich.
@@MichaelPfaff Thinking the CDC, who have been caught lying about information related to covid(along with ties to the CCP who are an actual authoritarian regime), being denounced by the President as a bad thing is rich.
@@MichaelPfaff The Left is the problem. And the CDC is still publishing data about the pandemic. They just posted new data on their website today Nov 11th 2020. Maybe you should stop listening to propaganda networks that tell you false information.
D W Griffith also used vignettes, before this movie was released.
12:45
To re-visit
(Note to myself)
Anyone here after watching "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent"?
I believe it's pronounced 'Cheh-sah-ray"
Correct. Caligari and Cesare are Italian names.
That's what I thought.
❤my favorite❤
MICHAEL MYERS'S LONG LOST DISTANT RELATIVE
Nah,it was preceded in Germany by The Student of Prague (1913) and the 1st version of Der Gollem (1915)
So it's Shutter Island,,, cool...
One quibble. Cesare is not pronounced Caesar. It is pronounced Chesaray.
Cesare is pronounced 'che-sa-rey'
The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari was doing Citizen Kane before Citizen Kane
pov ur watching this for film class tmrw
Big set design like Citizen Kane..🤔
5:43 ah come on, a bit of research would have told you that these colors were chosen by the restoration team, based on the convention used for most restored silent movies. The original colors varied across all kinds of regions and production houses (often just decided by the printer themselves, not the original creators). If the print was colored at all, as it was seen as more of a tech gimmick close to 3D or Dolby Atmos is seen today.
Great review, I dont wanna be one of those Im smarter than u people, I hate that lol, but its pronounced chess-uh-ri, cesare, ceaser is a completely different name, easy mistake to make they are very similar, figured u may wanna kno, the video was very well said I enjoyed it
At what kind of totalitarism are you thinking of ? In 1919, when the movie has been shot, nobody was talking about totalitarism. The word did not even exist. In 1919 the russian revolution had just began (white Russians are fighting against red Russians to try to restaure the tsar power lost in 1917). Mussolini and Hitler are not even known. Germany is under a democratic republic, called Republic of Weimar, that had replaced the Empire. Italia is a parliament monarchy. I think we should definitely forget any comparaison of the film with the totalitarism. It is anachronistic. We should rather think about the profound influence of the post-first world war psychological effects on the society. This twisted world looks more like the ruined Europe and all those battle fields (take a look to pictures of the battle fields of Verdun after 1916). It has more to do with the disbelief in progress, and humanity, which are the main immediate consequence of this war. It is a movie about madness. The human being madness ! The war (and especially this war in the mind of the people in 1919) wasn't it's best expression ?
Now the same thing is happening in the RF. It's really terrible.
I actually believe that it was Francis who killed his friend Allan over jealousy regarding Jane. This is the brilliant thing about this film's plot, bringing the unreliable narrative style to Cinema early in its days.
I compliment this narrator's ability to DECIPHER this absurd film. I watched it a dozen times, and failed. (I am NO Amateur film watcher and historian. With a private collection of 10,000 VHS & DVD's.) I am also Not German, living through WW-1 and a totalitarian state. I am an America, born in the middle 20th century. I enjoy films which make sense to my sensibilities. I am remarkably enlightened and tolerant of other cultures. But, I despise this film style much like everyone hates the taste of certain foods. As a stage performer of 50 years, I feel the cardinal rule of ALL entertainment, journalism, and advertising / selling is to "Reach" your Audience. Where THEY are at, not the creator's private flights of fancy (or descent into madness).
Again, I respect this narator's skill in un-raveling the Gordian Knot. But, Any form of presentation (such as an Ad, or a film) which requires the audience to "decipher" it, like the Enigma code machine, is sheer folly.
I still reserve the right to say I would Not study this film to learn the art of film making. I would look for examples which "resonate" with my target audience. Both consciously AND sub-consciously. EX: The greatest works of English language literature. -- the Scrooge story, and King Arthur legend, as in "Camelot". The up-lifting "Yankee Doodle Dandy", starring America's favorite star, James Cagney. Inspirational Role-model TV shows such as "The Lone Ranger", "The Rifleman", "Daniel Boone", "Little House". And, the single greatest, most beloved film of ALL time. -- seen by more people than Any other object on earth. -- "The Wizard of Oz".
Germany in the 20's was not a totalitarian state, it was a liberal democracy. Do your homework.
You should also consider it later became a dictarship due to the hardship in Germany of the 1920s. What made them change....
somehow BigTop Burger got me here
Whatever it takes 🤷♂️ lol
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ BROTHER this is not fantasy, mistry or horror film.. it's a psychological expression of a particular person's thought as narration. You can say phycological film. This type of films birth from German Expressionism art movement....
If you don't know something about your videos, such as the frequency of vignette use, it would be a good idea, particularly if this is something you intend to do seriously, to spend a couple of minutes googling the answer. Not difficult, kid. Also, this is a very light and shallow exploration of the movie. C-. Must try harder.
Don’t focus on totalitarianism too long. I’m not saying you are wrong but the movie is shot so vague that we can still interpret it in today’s context. Let’s ask the question of how is a commercial different from Caligari? You see a future and therefore in sleepwalking state you buy it but in the end you don’t feel better. Furthermore, aren’t commercial not created by people who do nothing else in their life to study human behaviors and needs and dreams and so on? This movie is more subversive than They Live by John Carpenter and I wouldn’t have thought it would be possible.
I beg to differ. Nosferatu was the 1st.
Nosferatu was released in 1922
Your analysis is brilliant ! But, that's the whole problem. It exposes the stupidly in-effective and in-comprehensible aspect of the "plot twists". The film is too too ! What good is any piece of communication if the audience can't understand it?
I dilligently watched this movie several times, and couldn't unravel its story line. And, I am not exactly stupid. Owning a vast library of 5,000 DVD's. All of which I work to "reverse engineer". So I can understand, and explain them on a deep level. But this one always resisted my efforts.
Its "clever" far-ahead-of-their-time techniques are excessively bizarre. That, plus it being both silent and the title-cards in German, obscure too much. They make it too difficult to follow.
By contrast, "Citizen Kane" is just as innovative, yet is fully comprehensible. In other words, I am saying F. W. Murnau is Not as ingenius as this video would have me to believe.