Valentino Review: Camille

Camille

Starring: Rudolph Valentino, Alla Nazimova, Rex Cherryman, Patsy Ruth Miller, Alexander Hoyt

Directed by: Ray C. Smallwood

Scenario: June Mathis

September 26, 1921

DVD Status: Released via Grapevine. Click here to purchase!

My rating (out of 5 stars): 1. And thats for Valentino.

Pretentious and Insane

I can't say I have yet seen a Valentino movie in which it was so bad I could not stand it. The worst to date was "All Night" which at the very least was just a contrived half hearted plot...but Valentino was golden in it. And I have yet to see a film where Valentino was bad himself...even given poor direction, poor material, or poor co-stars. But God help me...if Valentino hadn't been in "Camille"...I would have walked out. It was baaaaaaaad.

I enjoy all sorts of films, silents, moderns, foreign, whatever. But the one thing you can not get me to prescribe to is pretentious dreck of any sort. I don't care how arty you think you are...you're really just boring. And that's what Alla Nazimova was.

No fewer than 3 title cards in the beginning remind us this is a NAZIMOVA picture (complete with her own special large font). She and Ingram had this in common. Thankfully Valentino never acquired such an ego. Nazimova was supposed to be a legend, the first power lesbian and 'artistic' actress. Some say she was the first to bring naturalized acting to silent films. I say they are insane. Mary Pickford was in films in 1909 while Nazimova didn't enter films till 1916. Mary Pickford never made a movie which made you think 'God she overacted!' Judging by this Nazimova did the opposite. She spent the whole film reminding you you were watching Nazimova, not Marguerite. She also spent the whole film in weird acting hysterics, acting like a boudoir doll who couldn't fully hold her own weight or stand up straight. I'd say if anything this film makes me prone to believe she did nothing BUT stereotypical bad silent acting.

Film goers and critics agreed with me. It was a flop. However the film is notable for a few things. It was one of the first and only films many of Valentino's real life friends worked on at the same time: Nazimova, Natacha Rambova (who he met right before working on this set), Paul Ivano, and June Mathis. It was also one of the only films (especially for his later work) in which HE was the one being dominated...a reverse of the Sheik if you will. So interesting stuff. For all 10 minutes he's in it.

Plot

The film apparently opens in either Modern day or 'Futuristic' Paris. Gaston Rieux (Rex Cherryman) has brought his friend Armand Duval (Rudolph Valentino) who is new in town, to the opera. The boys notice a woman making herself the center of attention in a group of men. The woman is Marguerite Gautier (Alla Nazimova) who knows Gaston. Marguerite and her posse leave, and the boys are invited to crash her dinner party.

Now at Marguerite's opulent home the crowd is having a lovely crazed drunken time. A man tries to kiss Marguerite's hand and she says, "Not without putting jewels on it first!" It seems implied she is basically a Count's hoochie. Or a gold digger. She's also sickly, but no one seems to care as they are used to it.

The group sits down to dinner when Gaston and Armand arrive. Marguerite is made aware of Armand's crush on her, to which she gives the same jewel response. However she seats him beside her and flirts a little. Marguerite gets up to answer the door and in what I swear is a 'she was a lover of mine' scene a woman named Nichette (Pasty Ruth Miller) arrives. Gaston is taken with her, by Marguerite says Nichette is too good for him. However Nichette seems to return his feelings.

Everyone returns to getting drunk and acting crazy when another coughing fit overcomes Marguerite. Armand is the only person concerned and he follows her into her bedroom to offer any help. Marguerite is jaded and says no one cares and not to bother. Armand clings to her knees saying he'd be anything to her as long as she'd let him. The drunks interrupt them and angry Marguerite casts them all out saying they don't care about her.

Apparently a few months pass by and we see Marguerite in a park lying on the grass. Armand arrives and brings her a gift, a book called "Manon" which is about a man who gives it all up for a woman who lost all her wealth and reputation. As Armand reads to her Marguerite has a daydream and realizes the plot of the book could happen to them...since she was once a woman of ill repute. She vows to never let herself drag him down. Gaston and Nichette arrive, announcing their engagement. In some very over dramatic acting it is conveyed to us this will never be for Marguerite and Armand as they are doomed (at least in Marguerite's mind).

More time passes and Marguerite is planning to sell off all her hoochie earned riches and marry Armand. As she signs the papers Armand's father arrives and speaks to her. He tells her that he has two children, one a daughter about to be married. However the engagement will be broken if Armand remains with Marguerite because of her past scandals. Marguerite agrees to only disappear until the wedding, but Daddy doesn't think that will do. Marguerite overacts her way into agreeing she wont let him be like Manon and writes a note to Armand saying how she must leave him and to forget her.

She leaves her home, and Armand arrives. He finds the note and is heartbroken. Some time passes and its implied both have been acting crazy and overindulgent, trying to forget each other. In a casino Armand is winning big, and has a gorgeous girl on his arm. Marguerite and her Count arrive (having reconciled apparently) and she spots Armand 'being happy'. They eventually see and run into each other. Armand tries to get her back but she refuses saying she loves the Count. Armand is heartbroken, and now pissed.

He drags her out back in front of everyone and declares how much he loved her, and how she spurned him because he didn't have money and 'money is all she loves'. He then says he now has money, takes out a wad of it, and throws it at her (while she overacts so bad it gives me cancer). She falls to the floor, and Armand goes to comfort her, but stops himself.

More time passes and Marguerite is apparently on her deathbed. In what I am sure if the longest most horrible death scene ever, she sits and writhes around for 20 minutes (or so it felt) while creditors come to the door. She apparently owes money and they have come to take her things. They let her keep Manon however. At the same time we see a scene of Armand reading a note, saying she willed him that very book because it was the only thing he had given her and she loved him.

Back to another 20 minutes of bad acting and STILL NOT DYING, eventually Gaston and Nichette arrive. It's their wedding day but the dying Marguerite could not attend. With them and her nurse at her side, Marguerite finally dies (even though her chest is still heaving). We zoom in on her face and FINALLY the end.

Thoughts and Best Scenes

HORRIBLE! DRECK! AWFUL! Sorry...just to give you an idea of how bad it was I was sitting there just going 'Die already!' You really shouldn't WANT your lead character to die. You should feel bad for them.

The best scenes were quite obviously the Valentino scenes. And even those weren't strong enough to make me excited. Valentino acted extremely well, except where I'm sure Nazimova commanded him to overact and not kiss her too deeply (the park scene, a few lines in the casino scene). He did steal her girlfriend (Jean Acker) you know!

The Letter finding scene was great. Valentino enters, seems all excited and looks around for Marguerite. Eventually he looks on the desk and reads the note...and I swear you will never have seen anything so touching as his broken heart. The Casino scene was great as well. Especially when he realizes Marguerite is in the room and sits there and shows off to make her jealous. When he has his moment alone with Marguerite afterwards he pulls her towards him and kisses her neck. Extremely sexy. The confrontation scene was pretty good too but not his best. Still not bad though.

Apparently there were two endings. The overextended death scene, and a scene where Armand comes back to find his dying love. Rambova said his acting in that scene brought the extras to real tears. But it was TOO good...bitch cut it out. So we'll never know.

There are two interesting things about Camille. First is how it parallelled Valentino's real life relationship with Natacha Rambova...who he met right before working on this set. There's a controlling woman who breaks him down, and eventually leaves him for stupid reasons (in Rambova's case it was control over his films and publicity) breaking his heart. And when his heart was broken he played it up way too much to try and show her he was okay (Pola Negri, Son of the Sheik, and the constant partying). Its what killed him in real life! So eerie

The other is the fact that Camille is probably the only Valentino film in which HE is subservient. Nazimova is 'The Sheik' and he is 'Lady Diana'. She eats him alive, she captures him. He is willing to be her servant or her dog just to have her! In fact the only time this is reversed is the Casino scene, and that's because of his broken heart. Of course even Lady Diana lashed out at the Sheik on a few occasions. So if I'm giving Nazimova anything its her influence probably didn't HURT his later dominant male roles.

Honestly (Nazimova aside, and I'm getting there in a sec) the other actors were not of note. This was a Nazimova show and it was hard enough to even watch Valentino because of her. No one was bad, but no one stood out either. However I will say June Mathis delivered a decent enough script. With a different crew entirely this could have been a decent film. There were several missed opportunities in my opinion, including when 'still not fully dead' Marguerite sees a blurry outline of the couple in their wedding clothes...but instead of implying she was deliriously thinking of Armand it never goes there. It should have.

I know a lot of Valentino fans are anti Rambova. I have tried to give her a fair shake but lets just stick to art if you will. I'm sure in some circles (such as Nazimova's) that would be called talented but I call it pretentious. Her sets and costumes just make Nazimova's acting all the weirder and this movie all the more unbearable. The opening cards suggest the movie is in present times but the sets don't make you think the 20s and even in the 20s apparently did not bring the present to mind (with reviewers calling it 'futuristic'). The sets just distract you from the story, and with Nazimova's overacting its like watching a one woman freak show in a weird cage.

As for the costumes Rambova is to blame. Marguerite's look is insane. Whether it was Rambova or Nazimova who insisted upon it; the hair is just distracting and whatever time period this is set in it just does not fit (no one else looks like Sideshow Bob!) Her clothing does not help either...in some scenes she looks overdone in a bad futuristic manner (the opening scene) or too poor for the gold digger she's supposed to be (any scene since she met Armand). She hadn't sold her things yet so that doesn't make sense to me. Surely a loon like Marguerite would have had a nice wardrobe not just one dress!!!

Kooky Nazimova aside, Rambova's costumes don't work anywhere else for that matter. Every woman (background or supporting character) looked like some window into Rambova's madness...or to quote Nita Naldi: "A man would run 20 miles if he ever stumbled on a woman really looking like that."

Nazimova the Destroyer

Nazimova has her fans. And they'd probably eat me alive and write me off as someone with no taste for my opinions. I just can not see this woman's appeal. Ya know she barely had a 5 year window of appeal to the public...so why is she remembered so fondly and as so talented? That escapes all logic to me when someone like her is remembered as amazing yet Valentino is written off as a pretty face (and he obviously was much more if he could make this crap look appealing!)

As I watched this all I could think is "I'm spending 70 minutes watching Alla Nazimova shake and convulse weirdly..." She doesn't make you believe or think she is Marguerite and she doesn't seem to care. You're given this feeling like you're watching some weird pretentious art project...which will never make sense except to other pretentious arty people (who really don't get it but they pretend ya know).

Her acting is just insane. She over emotes every chance given, keeps falling or half falling, and cant seem to stand up straight. When she has a love scene it is so over the top its obscene! She makes it look like some dated 1800s play...and maybe that's where her acting style comes from. But surely by 1921, after Pickford, we could do better.

Nazimova was responsible for the whole picture. She shadow directed it, she choose her inner circle to do most of the production, and when Valentino out acted her she had his scene cut. Everything wrong with Camille is Nazimova's fault.

There are two examples to prove my point. My apologies as embedding was disabled on them:

The Casino Scene (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LN18HWs3eKU) in which Nazimova makes you laugh at her, when you should feel bad for her. On the other hand Valentino is excellent.

The Death Scene (which is so long its two links: http://youtube.com/watch?v=M4Z6NI9UfCE and http://youtube.com/watch?v=-N2vrY1R2MM) in which you just want to shout at the screen "DIE ALREADY" instead of feeling bad for her. Also its a little jarring, you can notice where the Valentino scene would have been added.

I think the best comparison I can give is to Greta Garbo. Greta was also known for taking artistic roles, however a common man can enjoy a Garbo film (My Uncle is a blue collar worker who enjoys country music and Gunsmoke...yet he calls her Miss Garbo, has a picture of her over his bed, and owns all her films). I cant imagine on any planet a common man (or even a slightly indie bent person) enjoying this film.

When Greta died you cried. When Nazimova died you said "FINALLY" and left. And that is why if Nazimova were still alive she should have been shot.

Behind the Scenes Tidbits:

*This was the film that Valentino first worked with his second wife Natacha Rambova on. Nazimova had a crush on her but its doubtful Rambova swung that way. However Valentino had already stolen Nazimova's girl once before, Jean Acker his first wife (a through and through lesbian)

*Rambova designed the sets and costumes. She based them off German Expressionism which was all the rage at the time in the film community

*2 major scenes of Valentino's were cut by Nazimova out of jealousy. One was Armand finding his lover on her deathbed, and the other was Armand bidding for the copy of Manon at an estate auction. Neither are known to survive. Variety dubbed this move an, "Arrant Misconception"

*Nazimova was responsible for the casting, direction, and production of the picture. What she didnt do herself she hired people from her circle to do.

*Nazimova insisted on being shot through gauze and other filters...giving the film a very odd look and sometimes a blurred look which is jarring

Reception: Then and Now

Camille bombed back in 1921. Movie goers and Critics alike didnt 'get' the picture and found it overall too artistic and weird. Alan Dale of the New York American stated, "Bobbed and Bizarre Dumas reigns at the Rivoli". Seemed not one review could go by without dubbing how weird it was. Moving Picture World put it best, "...should be sold as a polite freak rather than a translation of the story". Amen. Metro soon dumped Nazimova and it was one of the last major films she did. Salome would be the only other thing of note...and...that has the same problems magnified apparently.

As for now I was quite surprised to see a change in audience from Four Horsemen. Instead of overwhelmingly gay men it was a mix of every type possible. A lot more women this time, especially college aged. Seemed to be a lot more film buffs as well, not just people wanting to oogle Valentino. I thought this was for Nazimova but judging by comments I heard most people were there for Mr. Valentino. The theatre was just a hair fuller than last time, so still a pretty good turn out. I'd say 80% full.

The film was extremely short compared to the 2 hour epic last time. No hollering this time...but I suspect thats because there was so little Valentino and so little Valentino to look forward to. By the end it was a lot shorter clapping and I heard quite a few comments that indicated Valentino was good, but the film was something else entirely. One person said, "Well...its not what you'd expect of Valentino". Thank God for that. Valentino could be arty and pretentious or send home a message...but he was a great actor and could make it work. And thats why hes amazing.

We got 3 more films to go!!! And they are some good ones at that (no more arty pretentious crap!) Monsieur Beaucaire, and then the Sheik double feature. I'd love to see Sheik Week sell out so lets do it! If you're interested in purchasing tickets please click here.