Review of The Scarlet Empress (1934) by David M — 07 Mar 2009

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.