The only things separating Nazimova's "Camille" from being an experimental art film -- which her later "Salome" certainly is -- is that it tells a conventional story and uses only minimal special effects. In a purely cinematic sense, "Camille" is quite conventional. Director Ray Smallwood had worked on Nazimova's last couple of previous productions and was mainly there just to help Nazimova make the picture that she wanted; his career would not long outlast "Camille." The titles, written by June Mathis, are terribly overwrought and consist of the most pungent and overripe lines from "Camille"'s source play, a style completely inconsistent from Mathis' usual work. And yet that too would have been what Nazimova wanted. Rudolph Valentino, looking a little out of sorts playing the seduced, rather than the seducer, also turns in the performance that Nazimova needs, and present company doesn't think it among his best, though he looks great.
Nevertheless, there are lots of reasons to see this picture. Natacha Rambova's eye-popping sets are a sight to behold and actually take the picture to a higher level of experience than it would have been had a more typical set dressing -- even in a modernized version of this story, which this is -- been employed. Nazimova's portrayal of Dumas' ill-fated "Lady of the Camellias" is strange and to some degree alien, but it's a matter of style over substance, a phrase that describes this whole project. The 1936 Garbo version is more like a conventional adaptation of the property, but in 1921 Nazimova didn't want to do that -- she had her own sensational and imaginative vision of how to realize this story, and that is what she went with. While "Camille" is executed in a conventional way, the film itself is not conventional; it's more like a feverish dream about "Camille." Until the last third of the picture, Nazimova's portrayal is energetic and, at times, almost frenetic, her ultra-big big hair and wildly elaborate costume nearly upstaging her own Stanislavkïan acting ability. It is often said that this film was a commercial failure, but it wasn't; the presence of Valentino and its predictable story structure was enough to sell it to a public -- alas for Nazimova -- mainly interested in Valentino alone. "Camille" may not be as enthralling as "Salome", but it is a remarkable experience on its own terms, and as it runs just over an hour, even those not so well inclined towards the property as it unfolds will not have to wait long for it to be done.
Nevertheless, there are lots of reasons to see this picture. Natacha Rambova's eye-popping sets are a sight to behold and actually take the picture to a higher level of experience than it would have been had a more typical set dressing -- even in a modernized version of this story, which this is -- been employed. Nazimova's portrayal of Dumas' ill-fated "Lady of the Camellias" is strange and to some degree alien, but it's a matter of style over substance, a phrase that describes this whole project. The 1936 Garbo version is more like a conventional adaptation of the property, but in 1921 Nazimova didn't want to do that -- she had her own sensational and imaginative vision of how to realize this story, and that is what she went with. While "Camille" is executed in a conventional way, the film itself is not conventional; it's more like a feverish dream about "Camille." Until the last third of the picture, Nazimova's portrayal is energetic and, at times, almost frenetic, her ultra-big big hair and wildly elaborate costume nearly upstaging her own Stanislavkïan acting ability. It is often said that this film was a commercial failure, but it wasn't; the presence of Valentino and its predictable story structure was enough to sell it to a public -- alas for Nazimova -- mainly interested in Valentino alone. "Camille" may not be as enthralling as "Salome", but it is a remarkable experience on its own terms, and as it runs just over an hour, even those not so well inclined towards the property as it unfolds will not have to wait long for it to be done.