Liliom

This is a film based on a classic story reworked elsewhere by Fritz Lang, amongst others. It's a love story set in old Budapest about a carnival barker called Liliom, and a servant called Julie (pronounced with a decidedly odd "dj" sound throughout the movie) who is smitten with him. Julie is a remarkably attractive young lady who we first see toiling amongst an exuberance of glass vases, one of the more charming shots in the movie (wasn't life better when directors composed shots like painters?).

In this film and others, Borzage sets out his stall regarding love, his "faint heart never won fair lady" principles. I can live with that though he is rather brutal on the subject, quite happy to let the Fates unravel the threads of any man even faintly milksoppish. He really surpasses himself this time though, there's a carpenter who proposes to Julie and is knocked back, seemingly every week for a decade; perhaps he carries on after the end of the film until the undertaker is measuring him, who knows? The carpenter is an honest hard-working man who however is not the exciting razzmatazz individual we see with Liliom. There's a philosophy here. Liliom is lazy and a brute, Borzage shows no distaste even at the idea of him beating a woman. But he is carefree and charming. Borzage is telling us that there is no other value for a man in life than to be a rascal, beloved of the crowd. Indeed Liliom, absolutely without precedent, is selected as the first human to be allowed to return to earth after dying. That's the level of value that's associated with his lifestyle by the filmmaker.

My opinion is that Borzage stretches his philosophy too far with this movie and ends up seeming obnoxious. Love is a prize that women dangle from on high and men must make superhuman existential efforts to leap for. There's something antediluvian about his attitudes to gender. In Lucky Star, for example, it's charming, because you have a goodie up against a baddie, and it's a feel-good story with a spunky female. But here I just feel sorry for the carpenter, a much kinder man than Liliom, who works hard at life. I get the feeling from watching a few of his movies that he has fairly skewed ideas and would have a lot of sympathy with social Darwinists and also Objectivists like Ayn Rand.

It's an exasperating movie because it really is so beautiful, the fairground set is marvellous for example, and there is some beautiful heavenly footage. On the other hand Borzage hadn't managed to come to terms with sound here, at times it's almost like the actors are being prompted, that's how leaden the delivery can be. More fairly perhaps I should say that he hadn't come to terms with dialogue, because the sound design is actually very good in all other respects, the music in the beer garden is time wonderfully well with the conversation. What's really very nice to hear is the hammer dulcimer, which has a very unusual sound.

All in all a very mixed bag. In my opinion it's still totally unforgettable though.

There is indeed much to complain about this movie version of Molnar's mystical play --Farrell looks good in his title role, but his line readings, frankly, stink. This also suffers, in large part, from this being credited as the first movie that makes use of rear projection. The sets look phony.

There are two great strengths in this show, however: although the dialogue readings limp, the visual performances are perfect. Rose Hobart, as Julie, is little remembered today: mostly for ROSE HOBART, in which Joseph Cornell cut down the programmer EAST OF BORNEO to simply shots of her: credit Melford's stylish visual direction of the original. Her great beauty and simple (although stagy) performance help repair some of the damage to the earth-bound sections of this movie.

However, one of Borzage's themes is the mystical power of love, and it is the handling of the celestial sections that make this great, from the arrival of the celestial train to the journey to 'the Hot Place'. H.B. Warner's performance here is, as always, perfect.

So we have here a flawed but very interesting version. I think that Lang's 1934 version is better, as well as the celestial scenes in the Henry King version of CAROUSEL, the watered-down musical remake. But I still greatly enjoyed this version and think you should give it a chance.

For those posters who wondered about the quality of the new (Dec. 2008) DVD release of LILIOM, which is part of the over-stuffed, badly packaged Murnau and Borgaze at Fox set, the actual quality of this disc is unbelievably good. I don't know where they found their source elements, but this is a beautiful print, with only occasional flaws. The black and white photography is detailed and beautiful, allowing the best look we've had at the elaborate sets and interesting production design. Even Charles Farrell's voice, which is not ideal for this hyper-masculine role, is much improved on this newly restored print.

There is no commentary, but an impressive collection of still photos is included as an extra.

The film is still the stilted, downbeat, badly paced film it was before, but for "Carousel" aficionados, or fans of early talkies, this is a very interesting movie, which can now be experienced in a much more pleasurable manner. I would give the movie a 5-star rating, and the print 8 or 9. Amazingly good for its vintage!

I can now see why this particular film directed by Frank Borzage is not one of his more famous ones. It simply isn't a very good film by today's standards. Much of this can be attributed to when it was made. Borzage was a fine director--particularly of silents. This one, however, is one of his early talking pictures--and it suffers from several problems relatively common in early talkies. The sound quality is only fair (you'll want to use the optional captions), some of the actors way over-annunciate and the dialog is, at times, poor. However, it was up to the director to re-shoot scenes where lines were flubbed--and too often they were used as-is and the film looks a bit rough because of it. A few examples are Julie's girlfriend and her often lousy style of delivering her lines (bizarre is more like it), the awkward way Farrell knocks down Hobart at 35 minutes into the film and the subsequent stilted dialog between Hobart and her male friend, the Carpenter.

As for the plot, "Liliom" is an odd film. Unlike some of Borzage's films where the nobility of the common man is demonstrated (such as in "Street Angel" and "Seventh Heaven"), here in "Liliom" the characters are poor but very earthy. Liliom is a ne'er-do-well--a leech who feeds off his girlfriend, knocks her up and hangs with low-life friends--a type plot you'd never see once the Production Code was strengthened in 1934. It's rather odd to see Charles Farrell (Liliom) in such a role--not the usual nice guy and a bit odd looking underneath his gypsy-like hair and mustache. As a result, it's harder to connect with his character and, in fact, you find yourself hating him. As for his poor girlfriend, Julie (Rose Hobart), she just seems weak and pathetic--and incredibly needy. Put in psychological terms, he seems like an antisocial personality and she like a dependent personality.

When the film begins, Liliom meets Julie and he seems taken with her but also very indifferent at the same time. As for the quiet Julie, she is clearly smitten and allows him to move in with her. He doesn't work and soon she becomes pregnant. All the while, one of Liliom's old girlfriends keeps popping in and out of the picture. When Liliom learns that Julie is pregnant, he finally tells the girlfriend to take a hike and he wants to be responsible. So, he does what such a guy would do--plans on a robbery with his friend to get cash. What happens next you'll just need to see for yourself--and I pretty much suspect that you will never guess! And does it get weird!!

While I found the plot at first unpleasant due to the annoying characters, sub-par acting for a Borzage film and disliked the sloppy scenes needing re-takes, there still was a lot to like in the film. Borzage was a master at cinematography and used black & white film in an ingenious manner--and the film's use of shadows and wonderful sets are impressive. This is something Borzage perfected in the silent years and it clearly carries over here. Also, while some noted that the rear-projected backgrounds were not very good, it was the first film to use this technique--and you need to give the film makers credit for this. I particularly loved the scene where the train came through the window--it was surreal, beautiful and impressive. And speaking of this, the plot does change and picks up considerably towards the end--and must be seen. As a result of so much good and bad, the overall film is bizarrely uneven. I cannot hate it, but I really couldn't unequivocally recommend it either (even with a cool second half). Simply put, it should have been a lot better.

By the way, it is interesting and fitting that H.B. Warner was cast as the Magistrate in the film considering only a few years before he played Jesus in "The King of Kings". And, didn't the plot seem to justify and even romanticize domestic violence?!

Before the years of television and travel made easy by commercial aircraft, movie newsreels and feature films were the live action windows on the rest of the world for most Americans. Most of the films with Eastern Europe locales were based on novels or plays written by writers from those countries, or were made by directors and producers who came from there.

"Liliom" is one such film, based on a 1919 play of the same title by Hungarian author, Ference Molnar, known mostly by his professional name, Franz Molnar. This 1930 film is the first movie made of that play, with a screenplay by S.N. Behrman and Sonya Levien. The story takes place in Molnar's Budapest. Frank Borzage directed the Fox film with Charles Farrell in the lead role. Just four years later, Fox would remake the film with a major rewrite of the story, though still set in Budapest, and starring Charles Boyer.

The next major production of the story would be the Rodgers and Hammerstein 1956 musical, Carousel, again with a major revision of the story. It starred Gordon MacRae in the lead role and was directed by Henry King.

As the original play on film this is a good strory of love and drama, set around a carnival atmosphere. As it's a very early sound film, most of the cast seem somewhat wooden, probably due to the early sound techniques with stationary microphones. The sets also seem quite stagy. Still, itt's a fair film for a look at the original story as written by Molnar for his Austro-Hungarian stage of the time.

With the rudimentary production equipment and settings, this would probably not interest many movie goers of the 21st century.