Greta Garbo is a legend. Even when I was a child I knew that. Some silent film names live on forever in certain ways. There's a good chance you could say the name 'Rudolph Valentino', 'Louise Brooks', 'Gloria Swanson', or 'Charlie Chaplin' to anyone on the streets and they would have some sort of recognition.
Garbo is a bit like Lillian Gish and Gloria Swanson to the modern eye: a gorgeous actress of epic talent who was legendary in her own day. When you hear one of their films are playing you expect to have your world rocked. However modern audiences don't realize all 3 women suffered in terrible films, and more often than not they're the most interesting thing about said films. Of all 3 Lillian Gish escapes it the most, just more of her films are steeped in 'flicker problems' than bad film problems (ex: Way Down East and Broken Blossoms are very good films, but very very dated.)
This creates a serious problem for bringing newbies to silent films, or even classic films. They expect an epically wonderful film, and then get some overwrought dated mellerdrama instead...and thus are scarred for life. It is my solid opinion many silents were just as smooth and entertaining as a modern film. They should flow, have good stories, good actors, good characters, and just all around be entertaining. But what most modern viewers don't realize is even in their OWN day these ladies were in films that the audiences found simply put: terrible. I die a little inside to think a newbie might see the odd classist meller "Male and Female"
instead of "Sadie Thompson"
.Greta Garbo suffers the worst from this problem. Not only were most of her films (particularly silents) just terrible, but the ones that were considered good also have dated too much with age. You can enjoy them, but you need to speak the language. Its hard to throw on "Wild Orchids" and expect to be wowed.
Tonight my beloved Silent Movie Theatre ran "A Woman of Affairs"
. There has been an alarming increase of wheezing and hacking since The Silent Treatment took over (not their fault the OTC follows them like candy, they do good work and I like what they do; and for the record this was not one of their selected showings), but even worse was the lack of explanation to the younger half of the audience. The Silent Movie Theatre has vastly improved promoting their silents in the past few months, but I still die a little when they run something wonderful, but hard to grasp, and don't explain it beforehand.The showing was great, but the usually tithering showed up. I rarely hear 'out of place' laughter at silent screenings less its something extremely dated (audiences seem to lose it over the old use of 'gay' or 'make love')...but EVERY TIME a Garbo is screened the laughter is almost unbearable. Even Rudy's overwrought Sheik eye bulging (made several years before this film) got less laughter than several moments in this film. There was one particularly loud jackass in the back right of the theatre, who made sure we all had to hear his take on the legendary 'loose ring' scene. Sure the film had its understandably giggly moments, but that was not one of them. I shoulda thrown something in his direction...
The Silent Movie Theatre has run a handful of Garbo silents in the past year or so. "Wild Orchids" and "The Torrent" come to mind. Both bored me stupid as they were absolutely terrible mellers which mostly involved Greta looking gorgeous and not much else. But "A Woman of Affairs" is the perfect example of what's wrong with poor Garbo's legacy, and what the modern audience is missing when a simple explanation is not given.
With films like this, you have to understand something. With most easily accessible silents you just sit down and enjoy. You don't need to know anything. You can be wowed and dazzled just as if you sat down to watch "Some Like it Hot", "Titanic", or "Avatar". But with films like Garbos, you need to know more. You need to know the history. You need to know WHY. Otherwise, you're gonna be giggling like Homer when he hears the word 'tit mouse'.
For starters in the 1920s film was about the only form of entertainment you had, particularly in a small town. You could read, you could go watch a stage play or a vaudeville act, and if you were lucky (depending what year we're discussing) you'd have the radio to enjoy. There was no TV, no internet, no VCR. Certain silents were made to basically fill what TV would later. You wouldn't go just see one film at a movie theatre: you'd get several shorts and sometimes double bills to boot. Though shorts declined certain types of films filled that gap between 'Keystone' and 'I Love Lucy'. Mabel Normand's features were very comparable to a sitcom now, while someone like Garbo's films were almost like a soap opera would be now. No one said they were high class even back in the 20s, but there was obviously a demand for them.
Then throw in the censorship. You couldn't show interracial love (less someone died and both actors were white anyways), you couldn't show various types of violence, and you had to tread very carefully with sex. Everyone thinks pre 1934 was the 'precode' era...but that always strikes me as funny. There were codes from the 1910s onward. And by 1922 not only was Hays in office, there was also a strict code of 'dos and donts'. Sure you could circumvent them, but you had to be clever.
In this day and age of graphic explanation its hard to imagine just how finicky they were. For example you weren't allowed to use certain words like 'Manhandled' (which Gloria Swanson eventually got around). When making "Sadie Thompson" (a story about a hooker who tries to reform herself but a preacher won't let her, and he eventually tries to rape her) the censors wouldn't allow the use of the word 'rain' (Sadie Thompson evolved from a play called 'Rain' as the story takes place during a rainy few days), and wouldn't let the Preacher be identified as such (and wanted his name changed anyways).
"A Woman of Affairs" suffered severely from such censorship. Judge Magazine noted in its review that the censors insisted the word 'purity' be changed to 'decency'. That was perhaps the smallest demand. In this day and age of graphic sex scenes and explanations its no wonder a modern audience wouldn't grasp the subtleties the director and cast tried to throw into this film. For as many censored silents as I've seen (including total bewilderment over "The Sheik" and the location of the 'rape scene') I still had to sit and think about it, and had I not seen several documentaries and read a few Garbo biographies I would never have figured it out. Obviously Spoilers below:
The story basically concerns Diana (Garbo) being madly in love with her childhood friend Neville (John Gilbert). Her brother Jeffry (Douglas Fairbanks Jr being absolutely adorable again) is best buds with David (Johnny Mack Brown) and is hellbent on seeing his sister marry David. Diana and Jeffry are the last 2 of their bloodline and are quite wealthy. Neville comes from a rich legacy but is ''poor'' (not very, but he has less money than Diana so that just can't be!) His father is deeply opposed to their relationship and convinces Neville to ditch her for 'honor'. Neville goes off to Egypt instead of eloping with Diana. Diana is crushed and vows to never love again.
Time passes and Diana has apparently become some sort of celebutant whore. She marries David but she doesn't love him. About to get down to business on their honeymoon the police knock on the door, and David looks all crack addict-y in his fear (very bad overacting Johnny.) He's about to be arrested, for what we don't know, and jumps out the window instead. A few days later the police arrive and everyone seems perplexed as to why he would jump (despite there being detectives in the room the night before). Jeffry comes in drunk as Amy Winehouse and accuses Diana of causing his death. She says David 'died for decency' and the police seem happy with this. They all leave and Jeffry calls her a whore, though we never get to hear the real word (well, read.) Evil Daddy and Neville are convinced she did have something to do with it, and tell her not to come back to England.
Seven years pass and she returns to England, because Jeffry is dying. In the meantime she's been whoring it up with the richest men all over the world, apparently living a reckless lifestyle. Jeffry refuses to see her and in the same twist the newly engaged Neville finds where she is and whisks her away to his apartment. This is where the censorship gets so heavy you can't ''get'' it unless its explained to you.
The 'loose ring' scene takes place, with Garbo comparing herself to a ring on her ring finger that is about to fall off. There are 2 possible implications here and I've never been able to figure out the implied history as I have not read the play this film is based on. Either this is her ring from David, or Diana has remarried and it is not mentioned at all. Either way it was scandalous enough the censors wouldn't allow an explanation. Neville is engaged but not quite married. Diana looks at a photo of his fiancee Constance and remarks how she has 'clean eyes'. This brought titters but what the audience didn't get is the contrast that Diana has been a kept whore all these years, while Constance is an innocent virginal girl about to be married to someone she purely loves.
The two eventually seduce each other, with Garbo's ring falling off when she 'succumbs to temptation'. At the same time Jeffry dies, something she finds out the next morning when the two are caught by her friend and mentor Dr. Hugh (Lewis Stone). Now one other thing happened during this night that will be very relevant later but not explained: Diana becomes pregnant. There is no way in hell you would know this less you have studied Garbo and film, as they had to dance around it so much the scene must look like pure stupid meller madness to uninitiated eyes.
The next scene shows Constance acting giggly, noting 'in 3 months we'll have been married a year'. That's your first pregnancy hint. Neville gets a telegram informing him Diana is in a nunnery hospital (second hint) and about to die less he comes to her side. We see her in her room, all woozy and trembling. She reaches for the white flowers by her bed, which we see (BEFORE Neville arrives) are from Neville (third hint). The Good Doctor demands the flowers be taken out of there and Neville and Constance (who Neville wanted to come) arrive. Diana doesn't recognize him and the three discuss things in the waiting room.
Now here's the second wonderful scene you won't get without the explanation. There is no baby anymore, the reason Diana is in the hospital is she miscarried. She comes out crying 'for her flowers' which she sees in a delirium and cradles like a baby. She says they are the only thing she ever wanted or needed. See? No explanation, you ain't gonna get it. After this she spots Neville who she insists all will be well with now, as they'll be together. She then spots Constance and asks who she is, but recognizes her for her 'clean' eyes. She apologizes and say they can be together.
Time passes and Neville becomes a drunken bitch, one more hint over the lost baby. He goes to the Doctor's house to find help (Diana is conveniently there, better now), and is told that she really wasn't that big of a whore, David didn't die because of her. The full truth still isn't told to us, though the couple make up and plan to run off to South America and live happily ever after.
Of course Daddy must intervene one more time, and he and Diana have a show down. Neville and Constance arrive and Neville reveals the truth, that David was an embezzler (changed to thief per the censors request) and that Diana had lied and paid off his debts to save his name. While he's shouting this Diana plays with some playing cards on the table, and flips one over. Now this is an old timey thing modern viewers won't get, but she's basically 'reading the cards' (tarot cards with playing cards). We don't see what card she picked up. She asks 'Is that why you can be with me? For respect?" She and Neville leave and he returns to a crushed Constance, saying Diana 'told him her secret' (that Constance was pregnant). Constance says it was a lie, and all 4 rush out into the car to chase after Diana. They find her crashed car and her dead on the ground. In her gloved hand is the card, the ace of spades (death card, which ironically means rebirth...so had she not run off and killed herself she and Gilbert would have lived happily ever after apparently). The end.
It wasn't a bad film, but it was probably downright unbearable without the explanation. Garbo's style and acting are so lost in her age that it would be quite a challenge to have a new audience appreciate her without lengthy lectures. She was extremely beautiful, but very masculine in her build (and her feet...my God her feet!) Some of her costumes and stills are so gorgeous its unbelievable, but then some of her hairdos and costumes are so hideous its hard to get past them (my biggest qualm with 30s and 40s film is what I call the 'Alice Faye' and 'Bette Davis' looks.) She had a sheer kind of witchcraft with the camera, but you have to be willing to open your eyes to it after being soiled by modern bluntness so long.
I think, what really holds Garbo back, is all her films...even the good ones...are essentially what I call (and will surely get me some interesting google hits) 'women porn'. One of the most popular Hollywood trends in recent years has been movies seeped in 'destruction porn' i.e. the destroying of massive amounts of cities and life in films. Men eat it up with a spoon as it speaks to the animalistic 'set things on fire' urge they all seem to have. 'Women Porn' is the woman version of that...women don't like seeing actual things destroyed, but boy do we love vicariously watching hearts, hopes, loves, and dreams destroyed. From "A Woman of Affairs" to "Sex and the City" we've eaten it up since the flickers. In fact, it is perhaps, the entire point of the whole 'soap opera' genre.
Some of the first Garbo films I ever seen were when I lived in Florida and my womanly pursuits were falling around me. My musical ambitions were going down the shitter, and my heart was broken too. I caught "Grand Hotel" and "Camille" on TCM about that time. Both affected me so deeply I vowed not to watch them again (still haven't seen Camille. In a much happier recent time I seen "Grand Hotel" and was much less wowed by it, as I no longer feel like that broken ballerina who wanted to be 'alone'.) Sad to say but most women don't venture into film history, most women just eat the recent batch of shit like "Bride Wars" without thought. I think I was never so horrified in my life (and this was BEFORE I was a film snob) then when my sister declared "How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days" a GOOD film (a friend had dragged me to it, and it enraged me so I spent a year ranting about how stupid it was.)
Film history is made of men, particularly cranky old men. The few women are mostly obsessed with thinking *insert idol here* would have loved them and their 20 cats. The new film buffs, the hipster kids and revival screening lovers, are also mostly male. Most women are there as a favor. And thus you'll be hard pressed to find an assembled audience enjoying "Camille", let alone a theatre willing to screen it. I should note there is a wonderful little current of vintage style loving women, but there aren't enough of them to counter these above numbers. And not enough of them who will go past Jean Harlow.
Garbo really was a good actress, and to watch her is quite something. She only passed away 20 years ago. But how to put her in a modern context so she'll be appreciated...I'll never know. The other day I got a hit for 'Marilyn Monroe 1920s star'. Something tells me soon we won't remember anything before Farrah Fawcett anyways...
