The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: 1920
The story revolves around a young man named Francis, who recounts his disturbing experiences in the small town of Holstenwall. It starts near the end, and most of the movie is him recounting a tale. The tale is pretty twisted. The antagonist, Dr. Caligari, “awakens” his sleepwalking assistant Cesare. Cesare says Francis’ friend Alan will be dead the next morning. Much of the middle of the film is Francis trying to out Dr. Caligari as a murderer.
How does the film tell its story?
It tells it in a “nonlinear” fashion, which was pretty innovative for its time. It starts near the end, does mostly flashbacks, some scenes where the action is happening at the same time, then back to the “present”. It’s in black and white, but with innovative lightening, it’s easy to tell the difference between night and day. The interesting (and terrifying) sets often look like a Dr. Seuss book.
What conventions of cinematic storytelling does it use?
It uses lighting and shadow, the nonlinear narrative, horror, sets that match the tone, some ambiguity, and plot twists. Even without voices, the story comes across pretty clearly, and is meant to scare/freak-out audiences – just like modern horror movies.
Explain the final "plot twist."
The plot twist is that Francis, discovers that he is a patient in a mental institution. Turns out he was (or at least might have been) the insane one, and most of the rest of the story was actually about his insanity. This reminds me of The Sixth Sense, where the plot twist at the end (Malcolm was dead) changed how the viewer interprets the rest of the movie.
How does the final plot twist comment upon cinematic storytelling?
It leaves the rest of the story up for (re)interpretation. Just like the Sixth Sense, the movie takes on a different light if you watch it a second time with the perspective that Francis might be insane. All the twisted sets and strangeness can instead be viewed as looking into the mind of an insane person.
What do the set designs say about early filmmaking?
The sets were almost literally like the sets in a play. They didn’t really change throughout a scene. Costumes mattered a lot. Not a lot of blood and gore like modern horror films. Even the stabbing was shown through shadows. There weren’t a lot of special effects, though the writing showing up on buildings was novel for its time.
What do the set designs imply about stories and storytelling?
The set design matters, lots of different sets and new locations. It reminded me of a Tim Burton or Dr. Seuss book. Considering there were no computers or anything similar, it’s remarkable how the physical sets still set a dark and eerie tone.
How do the answers to questions 6 and 7 move us to contemplate the cultural relevance of this film?
We are studying this film over 100 years later. It has stood the test of time. Credited as the first horror film. A quote from the Roger Ebert article, “A case can be made that ‘Caligari’ was the first true horror film.”
If you had to think about a more modern, 20th century film with traces to Caligari, what would they be? Why?
It reminded me of the Dracula book that I read last semester. Both are early horror stories still studied today. As far as modern films go, the film reminded me visually of Tim Burton movies like The Nightmare Before Christmas.
How do questions about the reliability of a narrator suggest meanings, cultural relevance, and the nature of film?
Did these events actually happen or not? A little like the film Inception or Joker. By leaving some of the film ambiguous, it also lets the viewer determine what they think the film meant. That can actually make a film mean different things to different people. Some of the best movies are like that, letting the viewer make meaning of it for themselves.
Image Source: https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/the-cabinet-of-dr-caligari-1920/
Comments
Post a Comment