It's funny, but when I saw this film it sure seemed to be a story with a strongly gay subtext--even though the film was supposedly not about homosexuality. I really think that in 1924, this was MEANT to be the point but the film never directly said this--at least this is so with the English language version. Perhaps the European version was more explicit.
Why do I say this? Well, the film is about a brilliant painter and his muse/favorite model. Both are men and late in the film, the aging painter referred to the young man as his "adopted son and heir", but this seemed like a cover for the truth. Instead, it seemed like a love triangle, as the two men were happy and successful living together until the model met a woman and began taking the old guy for granted AND mistreating him badly. The painter, for his part, seemed like a dependent lover who never stood up to the young man for his mistreatment. In the end, when the old man died, he really seemed to have died from a broken heart after it was apparent that the younger man was never returning.
I sure wish I had a time machine so I could meet with the director, Dreyer, to determine if this gay subtext was intended. It sure seemed this way and the way they explained it all away seemed tough to believe--it just didn't seem to fit. In addition, most everyone reviewing this film also thought it was about homosexuality and I am sure they'd like a clear and unequivocal answer.
Now as for the film, it was wonderfully made--with some great camera work and a decent plot for a silent. Not a masterpiece, but a very good and unjustly forgotten film--one of Dreyer's best.
Why do I say this? Well, the film is about a brilliant painter and his muse/favorite model. Both are men and late in the film, the aging painter referred to the young man as his "adopted son and heir", but this seemed like a cover for the truth. Instead, it seemed like a love triangle, as the two men were happy and successful living together until the model met a woman and began taking the old guy for granted AND mistreating him badly. The painter, for his part, seemed like a dependent lover who never stood up to the young man for his mistreatment. In the end, when the old man died, he really seemed to have died from a broken heart after it was apparent that the younger man was never returning.
I sure wish I had a time machine so I could meet with the director, Dreyer, to determine if this gay subtext was intended. It sure seemed this way and the way they explained it all away seemed tough to believe--it just didn't seem to fit. In addition, most everyone reviewing this film also thought it was about homosexuality and I am sure they'd like a clear and unequivocal answer.
Now as for the film, it was wonderfully made--with some great camera work and a decent plot for a silent. Not a masterpiece, but a very good and unjustly forgotten film--one of Dreyer's best.