The Unexpected #2
Anton Walbrook fights a bear.
From THE SOLDIER AND THE LADY, a movie that perhaps exists to explain solely why Walbrook never became a Hollywood star, and to provide an excuse for this post. Number Two in an occasional series of things you never particularly hoped to see.
MICHAEL STROGOFF was a French epic directed by Richard Eichberg and Jacques de Baroncelli. RKO liked it so much they hired its star, Walbrook, specifically so they could cannibalise the film, using all the expensive visual bits and shooting new dialogue in English. (The resulting melange ends up credited to George Nichols Jnr, who shot only the bad bits. Don’t know much about him except he apparently died on the job, in 1940, shooting THE MARINES FLY HIGH.)
Unfortunately, the studio’s “de-imagining” included inserting two “comedy relief” characters, played by the normally-welcome Eric Blore and Edward Brophy, who disrupt the story’s sweep and (potential) dignity at every turn. It’s like thrusting Wheeler and Woolsey into a version of LES MISERABLES.
Anton’s ursine encounter is put together with the fast editing associated with the French silent cinema of ten years before, a flurry of quick cuts attempting to convince us that Walbrook, his stunt double, the bear, and the man in the bear costume, are all part of the same dramatic continuum. It almost works. Walbrook doesn’t look like any kind of Grizzly Adams, but he enters into the fray with the dignity and conviction that comes from knowing that he, alone, is Anton fucking Walbrook. Damn straight.
Share this:
Like this:
This entry was posted on September 22, 2010 at 10:20 am and is filed under FILM, literature with tags Anton Walbrook, Jacques de Baroncelli, Jules Verne, Michael Strogoff, Richard Eichberg, The Soldier and the Lady. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.



September 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Damned because he wasn’t at all straight.
Walbrook didn’t make it in Hollywood because MGM bought Dickson’s Gaslight and had Cukor remake it. Both filsm are terifficbut Walbrook’s association with the first probably led to his being shut out of Tinseltown.
Not that it mattered. Never in a zillion years would Hollywood have offered him the likes of The Red Shoes
September 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I was obsessed with the book MICHAEL STROGOFF as a lad, and have always longed to see the Walbrook film. Do the French or German versions still exist? Or are we stuck with the butchered Hollywood rip-off?
There is also a big-budget French-Italian version from 1956, directed by Carmine Gallone and starring the profoundly uncharismatic Curd Jurgens. Also one from 1969, directed by Eriprando Visconti (Luchino’s nephew) and starring (hope I’ve got this right) the lovely John Philip Law.
I’ve seen only the 1956 version and it’s dreadful!!
September 22, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Yes you’ve got it right And what a supporting cast! Mimsy Farmer, Hiram Keller and
(wait for it)
Elizabeth Bergner.
September 22, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Obvioulsy he caught a double feature of Fellini Satyricon and Skidoo
September 22, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Off-Topic (though I’m sure Walbrook would have loved it): Ta-Dah!
September 22, 2010 at 5:59 pm
The original Strogoff does exist, although nobody’s ever subtitled it. Hollywood suppressed many of the movies the remade, but fortunately rarely succeeded in destroying them altogether.
The Dickinson Gaslight has only one really satisfactory lead whereas the Cukor has two, but despite this apparent deficit, I find the original superior in every other respect, particularly script. And Walbrook is brilliant enough for two.
The 1969 version of Strogoff sounds big fun.
Curd Jurgens’ big mistake seems to have been believing he was a leading man. He’s very good at playing vile villains, but anything calling for sympathy was a stretch too far, and a little of him goes a long way. I do think he’s good in Tamango, though.
September 22, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Nice cast for Howl — I’m a longstanding Balaban fan!
September 22, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The Tourjanksy 1926 version of Strogoff starring Ivan Moskine might actually be the one to go for, who knows?
September 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Finally took the plunge, I’ve been eyeballing this for awhile. Everything I’ve read makes it sound very worthwhile.
September 22, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Walbrook is the one who’s excluded (and who excludes himself) from the heterosexual roundelay that is Ophuls’ LA RONDE.
September 22, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Queen of Spades is superb.
There’s a line at the start of La Ronde, usually subtitled something like, “Are you fooling with me?” asked by Signoret, and Walbrook replies, “I never fool with anyone.” But the French “foutre” I think translates more literally as “Are you fucking with me?” and by his reply Walbrook rules himself out of that whole sex game. Of course, the French is a milder expletive.
September 22, 2010 at 10:51 pm
That’s interesting because Lermontov in The Red Shoes could say the same thing.
September 23, 2010 at 12:15 am
Yes, since Walbrook didn’t quite suggest raging heterosexuality, and wasn’t allowed to suggest the converse, he was frequently typed as asexual, or someone who displaced sexual desire onto some other activity. As his fondling of the ballet shoe sculpture demonstrates very vividly.
February 13, 2011 at 1:44 am
Hi,
erm, this may sound a bit creepy…but I was wondering where you found ‘The Soldier And The Lady’? Do you have any download links or something?
I’m a huge fan of Anton Walbrook and can’t find the film for the sake of it. (as many of his films sadly…)
Thanks,
Jools
February 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I don’t have a public download link, alas. If it’s OK, I’ll email you, and we can talk about how you can get the movie, and maybe a couple of other rare Walbrooks. Let me know if this is OK.
February 13, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Sure it’s okay.
That would be great!
My e-mail is
jolly_rotten@gmx.de
Thanks!