Last Laugh (Full Screen)

Some were titles I was familiar with; others were unknown to me. But every one of them were cinematic works of art. I remember seeing "The Cabinet Of Doctor Caliagri", Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" and "Ivan The Terrible, Part I", Cocteau's "Beauty And The Beast", as well as Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai". I remember the level of film-making quality, and thinking I never saw anything prior to what I saw in these films, to compare to what these films offered. They were not just thought-provoking, but they, very often, had a human or a dramatic, aspect to them which most commercial films never captured. I was enjoying the beginning of an education in the history of cinema.

Another treat in that film series was Murnau's "The Last Laugh". It wasn't just the story of a working man, and what happened to him when the source of his pride and satisfation was gone, which gripped me. It was also about how the film depicted the "neighbors" and "friends", who took delight in the doorman'ss humiliation, and how other employees, except for one, were more concerned about their own loyalty to the hotel, rather than expressing personal sympathy. It's a very human story, told in a very simple, but occasionally expressionistic, way.

Other reviewers have remarked about the fluid camera work, and the fact of Murnau's using just one title card. I agree that both of those elements contribute to making "The Last Laugh" a memorable film. I'd also add that Emil Jannings should get credit for his stunning, tragic performance. Don't miss this film!

D. W Griffith is usually shunned for his stance on racial issues and praised for his abilities as an influential film artist. I believe he doesn't deserve this praise - and this movie is why. Not only was Griffith about as subtle as a migraine, but watching a Griffith silent, you get more words than images. There's a title card telling you what is about to happen in every image before it does. The images themselves are almost unnecessary - his style is more literary than cinematic. The difference between watching Griffith's Intolerance and watching F. W Murnau's The Last Laugh is like the difference between watching a silent comedy by Hal Roach and one by Charlie Chaplin. The latter of each pair (Murnau and Chaplin) were visualists and artists, using few words, constructing beauty and high emotion through seemingly simple situations (a tramp who discovers a lost child, or a hotel doorman who loses his job, which is the basis of The Last Laugh).

Silent directors strove to and were praised for their ability to tell stories through images alone, as much as possible, and this is one of the reasons silent cinema reached its pinnacle in F. W Murnau's The Last Laugh - which tells the story of a proud hotel doorman (Emil Jennings), who, after many years of service, is demoted from his position to a mens' bathroom attendant. Murnau tells an incredibly sensitive and human tale, showing how much the job meant to him by having him go to work instead of going to his daughter's wedding. He shows how the position made him respected in his neighbourhood, and how he could not face the neighbourhood without his doorman's uniform. And he tells the story almost entirely through images.

There are no title cards telling us what the images are - they are allowed to speak for themselves. The few words used are worked in through letters and signs. Many silent directors cheated and used title cards to explain the images, but only in this movie did the art form of silent movies, which Lillian Gish refers to, take shape.

I was amazed at the level of depth and emotional complexity that Murnau was capable of conveying without resorting to title cards (or their equivalent in talkies, the voiceover). This movie is also noteable for its brilliant use of expressionism, and the first brilliant use of a tracking shot. In Murnau's The Last Laugh, silent movies metaphorically were given movement, and learned to run.