But what if? What would be my leading contenders, what would rank closest to that elusive 4? Here's what I came up with for the season, which would have run from Aug 1912 through July 1913.
Nominated Features: The Life and Death of King Richard III (10/12), The Mystery of the Rocks of Kador (12/12), The Miracle (12/12), Les Misérables (12/12 or 1/13), Quo Vadis? (4/13)
Nominated Shorts: The Cameraman’s Revenge (10/12), A Romany Spy (11/12)
The Cameraman's Revenge is the only one with a 4 among this group, so that would be my winner in the shorts category. For features, we are seeing a shift towards literary adaptations, prestige pictures if you will, championed by two filmmakers in particular.
André Calmettes (King Richard III) and Albert Capellani (Les Misérables)
Philippe Azoury addresses Capellani's intentions in this piece, which also breaks down the movement, the lighting, and more... cinematheque
and notablepeopleproject speaks to André's artistic aspirations, where they note
Calmettes’ work contributed to the early development of the film d’art approach, helping define a model for prestige cinema before the medium’s stylistic language fully matured. Through adaptations that highlighted prominent theatrical performers, he supported an interpretation of film as a serious art shaped by elite performance traditions. His production choices helped normalize the idea that cinema could carry literary and historical weight.
His advocacy for musical accompaniment also represented an important shift in how silent films were experienced in public settings. By synchronizing music with on-screen action, he helped move exhibition toward more intentional emotional pacing. Over time, these practices aligned with broader trends toward integrated audiovisual presentation, even though film technology and norms would continue evolving.
And yet, I could only go as high as 3.5 for both their films. I can see what admirers are speaking of with Les Misérables, the craft is undeniable, but unfortunately the telling is a bit dry, and doesn't inspire the same passions and awe I experienced with later adaptations, like Henri Fescourt's 1925 production, or Raymond Bernard's from 1934.
As to the other, my review...
The first known full-length William Shakespeare film was believed lost until 1996, when Oregon projectionist William Buffum donated his copy to the American Film Institute.
And bless his movie saving heart, because I was on the edge of my seat throughout... though I don't know if this was entirely due to the picture itself. Not that it's rotten, far from it - the production has merits and the story's a gem, it's only that Ennio Morricone's score does a lot of the heavy lifting. It's dramatic, tense, with a touch of madness. So that scenes of arm waving actors are transformed, as are static shots -the tableau vivant- even they have added grandeur when accompanied by the music. Take that bit with a ship out on the water - after a spell, I'm thinking, "Yes.... and", is it supposed to be doing something? No, it functions as a picture in film form; but coupled with Ennio's music, that floating boat becomes a pleasure to stare at.
Richard has a foot in the past, with painted sets that don't give off a sense of realism, but it also takes Shakespeare out of the studio, and into the fresh air, which opens it up a bit. Les Misérables has more naturalism to it, a stronger directorial hand, I'd say, but it doesn't have the Morricone score, which stirs the emotional juices, and causes me to sit up and take notice.
So, I remain torn between these two. If I did expand and was forced to choose, Hmm, which one, which one?
-sits there stroking his beard, pondering the pros and cons of each-
Which one, indeed.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.