THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI
The cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a german horror film directed by Robert Wiene in 1920. The main actors are Werner Krauss and Conrad Veidt, and it is set in a village recreated in a theatre.
Content analysis
Although many people would say that the theme of the film is the crimes committed by Dr. Caligari and Cesare the somnambulist, I would say that the theme is the madness coming from Franzis’ brain.
The plot of the story is Franzis telling his story about Dr. Caligari and the crimes, in his madness, as that’s not the reality.
I honestly think that the director created a captivating conflict as during the film I was kind of anxious to finally know what Dr. Caligari’s mystery was.
The main characters are Franzis, Dr. Caligari and Cesare the somnambulist; and the minor ones Alan (Franzis’ friend), Jane and the doctors in the mental hospital.
I have to say that in this film, I cannot really answer who my favourite or least favourite character is, as what you think at first isn’t what you think in the end. But if I had to answer I’d say that my least favourite would be Caligari because I can see him kind of evil, and my favourite one Franzis, as without him there would be no plot twist.
In my opinion, one of the most important actions took by a character would be when Franzis decides to investigate the crimes of murders being committed in the village. He is motivated by his friend Alan being murdered and that is related to the whole story told by Franzis.
In the end, the conflict is resolved by showing us that the mad one was Franzis and not Caligari, that everything in the story came out from Franzis’ mind. I think that the filmmakers are trying to tell us a story from a mad mind to show us that nothing is what it seems. I think that more than being successful, they were magistral.
As I cannot think of anything I didn’t like about the plot, what I liked most was being surprised in the end because I’d been deceived. On the whole, I liked it.
Technical Analysis
I liked the actors’ work because their facial expressions were very accurate for each scene.
The conversations were necessary, as the film was mute, I needed to have some dialogues to understand the story well.
In the film, the camera doesn’t really move, as it is a theatre. But there are usually approaches to the characters to dramatise the scene.
I believe that for that epoque, the movie flows quite well as it’s also short indeed. It isn’t neither fast or slow, it’s just accurate.
The music enhances the story perfectly as it makes us enter in a tetric atmosphere and gives us tenseness. In fact I would have used the music in the film the way it is, I wouldn’t change it.
I have to say that the events portrayed didn’t ring true, as it wasn’t the reality indeed. For example all the background, the houses and streets for instance, is irregularly made to tell us that it’s a distorted reality, because it is what comes from the madness of Franzis. The background is a very good visual aid to tell us that what they are telling us isn’t the reality. But for example, when they show us the reality, the village in the background is just normal and regular.
All the scenes were accurate, but together, didn’t match the reality, as I’ve said, it wasn’t real.
Conclusion
I personally do not think that this film shows us any value or so, I think it is just entertainment. So I wouldn’t say that I’ve learnt anything from this film.
At first I thought the film was a bit tedious, but when I reached the end, the fact that I’d been deceived made me think the film is a masterpiece.
Finally I believe that the film is in the given list as it’s one of the first films made and it’s a classic. But I think it’s not an easy film to analyse.
