For you Murnau people

[laughingrat]

OK, this is kind of a weird question. At the end of "The Last Laugh," there's a title card that comes up saying, effectively, that Murnau was forced by convention to add a happy ending. (It's been a while since I saw the movie, so I remembered it as saying the studio forced him into it--but this review says otherwise.) The title card sounds really cynical, which would be understandable if Murnau really did feel forced to add a false ending, and Roger Ebert, in the link above, refers to the act as "dimwitted," as if it were a crummy artistic choice.

Did Murnau really feel this way, though? Can anyone who's a little more familiar with the guy himself, or with how he worked, tell me what they think? My personal response as a viewer was that the happy ending was a really masterful stroke, one that was a deliberate and cunning choice. The happy ending is so patently impossible that it makes the "real" ending, the one that would have occurred in real life, that much sadder. When I watched it, it was like there were two stories running in my head at the same time--one where the old man died alone and miserable, and one where he rather improbably ended up just fine. The difference between the two was staggering.

Anyway, I've been wondering about this one for a while and wanted to see if anyone had some info or just a point of view about the movie and its ending.

Comments

[my_daroga]

Well, I've heard some debate about the Caligari thing, so I don't know, but yeah, that's the story. (The more film stuff I read, the more I am convinced it is all apocryphal and we cannot trust it!)

I don't think that opinion is idiosyncratic. I think it's pretty common. I think we want our "heroes" (of whatever stripe) to be aware of what they're doing. If it's an accident, it takes away from their talent/glory/whatever. But I often wonder if that's how I should think about it, because heavens, so much comes out through unconscious inspiration, through happy accidents. Welles said that directing was the art of presiding over accidents, and I know many writers or songwriters who simply cannot speak intelligently about their creative process--or even the end product--because they've produced something that they might not fully consciously understand, or be able to articulate.

Of course, the matter of having something imposed from the outside is different. We don't *know* that von Stroheim's version of "Greed" is qualitatively better, but we assume it is, just like Welles' version of Ambersons. Either way, it's a damn shame that they were tampered with, because we feel outrage at that being "taken away." What would happen if someone found either, and no one liked the original? Most people need editors, or constructive criticism, or partners. Is the difference when it gets "taken away"?

I haven't seen the "official" Chaplin stuff you're talking about, but it sounds awful. He wasn't a great technician. I think in general it's a mistake for artists to redo their work unless they literally remake it and leave the original be. I hate that Spielberg suddenly felt uncomfortable about the guys with guns in E.T. and so took 'em out. (Let's not even mention Lucas. Oh wait, I have.) You do what you do. When your politics/opinions/revolutionary youthful outlook on life change, does that give you license to erase your artistic past?

Since I'm already ranting a bit, I'll mention one director's cut I don't like, and which I think was Got Wrong: Amadeus. Yeah, not a classic, oh well. Anyway, the film used to cut from Salieri's perusal of Mozart's music for the first time to his diatribe against God and burning of the crucifix--in the new version, it goes to Stanzi's humiliating sexual pass, Salieri's refusal, then the God business. For me, this weakens the entire thrust of the film and the character. On the other hand, Blade Runner should have been the director's cut version from the beginning, so...

Ultimately I've said nothing.

[laughingrat]

I dunno, that was a pretty impressive movie in a lot of ways. :-D Oh god, I forgot about the "E.T." debacle. So shameful.

And you know, Lucas is another one of those dudes who gives the impression, to me anyway, of being totally all up on himself and not really working with or accepting outside influences. That's been a bit of a hobby-horse for me lately, since I think that Lang's partnership with von Harbou made their work particularly fabulous, and in the music field, I really admire how Tom Waits and Kathleen Brennan work together as a songwriting team. It revitalized his work when they started doing that.

Yeah, when imposition is involved, rather than a voluntary give-and-take, that's when I begin to get worried about whether the original artistic vision is better. But then again I wish someone had imposed on Lucas and kept him from re-working his earlier stuff. Bleah.

That's the thing about the humanities, it's all nothing in the end. :-D

[my_daroga]

Well, as for Lucas, I think those movies were a lot better when he had more outside influence. I mean, he directed A New Hope, and not the other two. That tells me something important. So yeah, I agree with you. And what about Powell and Pressburger? Though naturally that doesn't work for everyone, there's plenty of evidence of teamwork winning out.

[laughingrat]

Ohhh yeah, Powell and Pressburger, of course. :-D And, like...Thelma Schoonmaker and Martin Scorsese, which I know they don't work as equal partners exactly, but she's his editor, right? IMDb says she's done every film of his since "Raging Bull," so yeah, that's a powerful relationship right there.

I think it might be about letting other people keep you honest, or something. I'm not sure.

[my_daroga]

Or sometimes it's something ineffable. I mean, I don't think Garfunkel contributed much to the songwriting, but I do know that I like Paul Simon's work pre-solo career much better. Did that have anything to do with Garfunkel? Or is it just coincidence, getting older, etc?

[laughingrat]

That makes me wonder about musicians I like who just don't do so great anymore (in my opinion, not necessarily in others'). What about Jethro Tull? Did they just run out of steam? Cos Ian Anderson wasn't the only creative force in that group.

Of course, then you have Bob Dylan, who as far as I'm concerned exemplifies the whole "artist in a bubble" thing. Although I have to say a lot of folks seem to like his current stuff.

As you said earlier, we're not really saying anything in the sense that we're coming to firm conclusions, but I do think these sorts of discussions are great for working out a better, if also fuzzy, understanding of how people work. :-D Isn't that part of why we like movies anyway?

[my_daroga]

With anything creative, I think you have to admit that you'll never truly uncover all the motives, or the correct concoction of them. Because on top of that creative input, you've got personal issues and relationships and interests waxing and waning.

Oh, I do think this is great fun! Thanks for creating the community.