During the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.During the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.During the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.
- Awards
- 2 wins total
Károly Huszár
- Ivan - the Gatekeeper
- (as Charles Puffy)
Johnny Mack Brown
- Russian Officer
- (uncredited)
Albert Conti
- Military Commandant at Novokursk
- (uncredited)
Jules Cowles
- Peasant Who Robs Tatiana
- (uncredited)
Tiny Jones
- Revolutionist at Protest
- (uncredited)
Frank Leigh
- Outlaw Peasant in Cabin
- (uncredited)
Russ Powell
- Man Taking Sergei to Ivan
- (uncredited)
Bud Rae
- Russian Soldier
- (uncredited)
Sam Savitsky
- Military Guard
- (uncredited)
Michael Visaroff
- Cossack Whipping Sergei
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
During the Russian Revolution, "slow-thinking and ignorant" peasant Lon Chaney (as Sergei) promises to help beautiful waylaid countess Barbara Bedford (as Tatiana Alexandrova) travel to safety in the militarily protected city of Novokursk. In return, Ms. Bedford offers Mr. Chaney food and friendship. Before the couple are rescued, Bolsheviks whip Chaney and attempt to rape Bedford. When they are safe, Bedford gives Chaney a menial job; and, she falls in love with handsome Russian rescuer Ricardo Cortez (as Dimitri).
Oafish Chaney begins to realize Bedford never offered true friendship, as she is a member of the aristocratic class. Another of Chaney's peasant class, rotund Charles Puffy (as Ivan), encourages Chaney to attack his former companion, and her ilk. When the Revolution is won, Chaney believes, "I will be good enough for the Countess," and he hopes to "kiss her" like Captain Cortez kisses her. Fueled with liquor, Chaney decides to rape Bedford. Will his secret love for Bedford be his salvation, or damnation?
Nicely directed, in the last act, by Benjamin Christensen. An interesting earlier scene, wherein Chaney lovingly bathes Bedford's feet, can be seen as the point where Bedford is set up as Sergei's potential "Madonna"-type savior. Mr. Puffy makes a relatively good impression, neatly balancing comic with menacing. Handsome 1940s western star Johnny Mack Brown can be seen as a Russian officer; he quickly became an MGM co-star for no less than Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford and Norma Shearer.
***** Mockery (8/13/27) Benjamin Christensen ~ Lon Chaney, Barbara Bedford, Ricardo Cortez, Charles Puffy
Oafish Chaney begins to realize Bedford never offered true friendship, as she is a member of the aristocratic class. Another of Chaney's peasant class, rotund Charles Puffy (as Ivan), encourages Chaney to attack his former companion, and her ilk. When the Revolution is won, Chaney believes, "I will be good enough for the Countess," and he hopes to "kiss her" like Captain Cortez kisses her. Fueled with liquor, Chaney decides to rape Bedford. Will his secret love for Bedford be his salvation, or damnation?
Nicely directed, in the last act, by Benjamin Christensen. An interesting earlier scene, wherein Chaney lovingly bathes Bedford's feet, can be seen as the point where Bedford is set up as Sergei's potential "Madonna"-type savior. Mr. Puffy makes a relatively good impression, neatly balancing comic with menacing. Handsome 1940s western star Johnny Mack Brown can be seen as a Russian officer; he quickly became an MGM co-star for no less than Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford and Norma Shearer.
***** Mockery (8/13/27) Benjamin Christensen ~ Lon Chaney, Barbara Bedford, Ricardo Cortez, Charles Puffy
A downtrodden and slow-witted Russian peasant first saves the life of, and then fixates upon, a beautiful countess around the time of the Russian Revolution.
One of Lon Chaney's best films, yet little-seen or mentioned, probably because of him wearing so much less make-up than in his more celebrated roles like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Phantom of The Opera. It doesn't address the politics or historical events of the revolution in any detail, dwelling as it does on personal power dynamics instead, but it's a thoroughly involving tale, mostly due to the detail of the two leads, Chaney and the delicately expressive Barbara Bedford.
It strikes me again how brutal and cruel some of the great creations of the silent era were, dealing in the dread realities of life the same way as the early blues songs, the ancient folk ballads and original fairy tales. A lot of these rough edges were sanded off to make a more palatable fantasy product for the masses as sound came in, but films like this, The Man Who Laughs, The Last Command and even Chaplin comedies like The Kid and City Lights have a gut-punching pathos in the face of ordinary human horror that it's hard to find anywhere today.
7.1/10.
One of Lon Chaney's best films, yet little-seen or mentioned, probably because of him wearing so much less make-up than in his more celebrated roles like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Phantom of The Opera. It doesn't address the politics or historical events of the revolution in any detail, dwelling as it does on personal power dynamics instead, but it's a thoroughly involving tale, mostly due to the detail of the two leads, Chaney and the delicately expressive Barbara Bedford.
It strikes me again how brutal and cruel some of the great creations of the silent era were, dealing in the dread realities of life the same way as the early blues songs, the ancient folk ballads and original fairy tales. A lot of these rough edges were sanded off to make a more palatable fantasy product for the masses as sound came in, but films like this, The Man Who Laughs, The Last Command and even Chaplin comedies like The Kid and City Lights have a gut-punching pathos in the face of ordinary human horror that it's hard to find anywhere today.
7.1/10.
It's the chaos of the Russian revolution. Countess Tatiana Alexandrova (Barbara Bedford) is alone and on foot, desperate to get to Novokursk. She encounters peasant Sergei (Lon Chaney) who is picking over the corpses of dead soldiers. She hires him as her guide and promises to be his friend upon arrival. They pretend to be a married couple when they run into revolutionaries.
This is a fascinating exposition of the Russian revolution. Neither side is right. In a way, I am a little disappointed with some of Alexandrova's actions, but it is very much indicative of the society in general. At last, there is no satisfying ending and there isn't one in the real world. I probably would have ended the movie before the final fight.
This is a fascinating exposition of the Russian revolution. Neither side is right. In a way, I am a little disappointed with some of Alexandrova's actions, but it is very much indicative of the society in general. At last, there is no satisfying ending and there isn't one in the real world. I probably would have ended the movie before the final fight.
After recently viewing this film, I was rather perplexed to read the disparaging remarks aimed at Lon Chaney's performance. I will not argue with the general consensus that the film's story line is weak, and the overall feeling of the film is rather somber and oppressive. What would one expect to find when you're dealing with the stark realities of life in Siberia during the Russian Revolution? A light, carefree musical, perhaps? Danish director Benjamin Christensen does a masterful job of capturing the despair and gloom of the period, and the desperation of the central characters. The viewer never really gets to know the background of Chaney's character, Sergei, but his poignant confession to the Countess (who was disguised as a peasant woman at the time) that he never had a friend before provided a glimpse into the loneliness and harshness of Sergei's life. The Countess knew Sergei was `mentally challenged', and used this to her advantage to obtain safe passage to Novokursk. She made Sergei promise to tell any soldiers they met that she was his wife, and to say nothing more. Poor simple Sergei stuck to his story even after being savagely beaten by marauding Red soldiers. Sergei confused the woman's attentions and friendship, and believed it to mean much more.
What impressed me the most about this film was Chaney's performance. Though some dismissed his efforts as being unconvincing, or complained he `does little more than lumber about the set', I came away with a very different opinion. Chaney's gift was not only for make-up-which was expertly employed in this film-but for emotionally compelling pantomime. Chaney's Sergei exuded a rough, animalistic power in the way he moved and expressed himself. The performance was remarkably restrained, considering how easy it would have been to go over the top with this type of character. The one thing that proved to me Chaney's command of his craft is the way he looked out of his eyes. It is one thing to be able to change the expressions on your face to appear to be a simple, dim-witted peasant, but to show that in your eyes requires the height of brilliant acting acumen. Chaney's eyes reflected a supremely vacant expression that matched Sergei's mental state perfectly. Overall, I firmly believe this is one of the best performances of Chaney's career. There is even a very funny comedy scene featuring a drunk Sergei taunting the pompous Mr. Gaidaroff. The film, on the other hand, is certainly not everyone's cup of tea due to its subject matter, but I feel it has a lot of hidden meanings and pathos that can be tapped into to create a much broader picture of life amongst the privileged and lower castes of Revolutionary Russia.
What impressed me the most about this film was Chaney's performance. Though some dismissed his efforts as being unconvincing, or complained he `does little more than lumber about the set', I came away with a very different opinion. Chaney's gift was not only for make-up-which was expertly employed in this film-but for emotionally compelling pantomime. Chaney's Sergei exuded a rough, animalistic power in the way he moved and expressed himself. The performance was remarkably restrained, considering how easy it would have been to go over the top with this type of character. The one thing that proved to me Chaney's command of his craft is the way he looked out of his eyes. It is one thing to be able to change the expressions on your face to appear to be a simple, dim-witted peasant, but to show that in your eyes requires the height of brilliant acting acumen. Chaney's eyes reflected a supremely vacant expression that matched Sergei's mental state perfectly. Overall, I firmly believe this is one of the best performances of Chaney's career. There is even a very funny comedy scene featuring a drunk Sergei taunting the pompous Mr. Gaidaroff. The film, on the other hand, is certainly not everyone's cup of tea due to its subject matter, but I feel it has a lot of hidden meanings and pathos that can be tapped into to create a much broader picture of life amongst the privileged and lower castes of Revolutionary Russia.
During his career, Lon Chaney played a lot of odd roles and a wide variety of nationalities. So, his playing a Russian peasant in "Mockery" isn't all that surprising.
The film is set during the Russian Revolution and it begins with Sergei (Chaney) looking among the dead after battle in order to find some food. While doing this, he meets up with a woman who offers to give him food and pay him if he can slip her into Novokursk--a nearby city besieged by Communist forces. He agrees and this peasant is now devoted to the woman. His devotion is proved when they are captured and he is beaten. Even then, he won't betray her.
When they are rescued, the woman turns out to be a countess and her gratitude towards Sergei seems shallow and fleeting. When he confronts her about this, she begrudgingly gives him a job working as one of her servants. Not surprisingly, when another servant, Ivan, begins lecturing Sergei about the evils of the rich, Sergei is more than willing to listen. After all, he'd taken a beating to save this woman yet seemed to have little regard for him. And all the servants seem ready to join the rebellion. What's next? See the film.
This is a decent but not exactly sparkling film. Chaney is fine but the plot is confusing as to its message. Is it a rousing endorsement of the destruction of a decadent system? You get inklings of this...but the ending also seems to strongly endorse the system. Or, is it a film that extols the virtue of the nobility? Well, not really as several of the rich folks in this film are real jerk-faces! So what's it all mean? I dunno...
If you do watch this one, look for Mack Swain as a corpulent rich jerk. He is normally known for comedies--particularly films with Chaplin. So, seeing him in a serious and thankless role like this is an interesting change of pace. Also, look for a very young and very handsome Ricardo Cortez as the Captain...he sure looks different than he did in his heyday in the 1930s.
The film is set during the Russian Revolution and it begins with Sergei (Chaney) looking among the dead after battle in order to find some food. While doing this, he meets up with a woman who offers to give him food and pay him if he can slip her into Novokursk--a nearby city besieged by Communist forces. He agrees and this peasant is now devoted to the woman. His devotion is proved when they are captured and he is beaten. Even then, he won't betray her.
When they are rescued, the woman turns out to be a countess and her gratitude towards Sergei seems shallow and fleeting. When he confronts her about this, she begrudgingly gives him a job working as one of her servants. Not surprisingly, when another servant, Ivan, begins lecturing Sergei about the evils of the rich, Sergei is more than willing to listen. After all, he'd taken a beating to save this woman yet seemed to have little regard for him. And all the servants seem ready to join the rebellion. What's next? See the film.
This is a decent but not exactly sparkling film. Chaney is fine but the plot is confusing as to its message. Is it a rousing endorsement of the destruction of a decadent system? You get inklings of this...but the ending also seems to strongly endorse the system. Or, is it a film that extols the virtue of the nobility? Well, not really as several of the rich folks in this film are real jerk-faces! So what's it all mean? I dunno...
If you do watch this one, look for Mack Swain as a corpulent rich jerk. He is normally known for comedies--particularly films with Chaplin. So, seeing him in a serious and thankless role like this is an interesting change of pace. Also, look for a very young and very handsome Ricardo Cortez as the Captain...he sure looks different than he did in his heyday in the 1930s.
Did you know
- TriviaThis film was preserved by the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, New York after having initially been thought as lost until a copy was discovered in the 1970s. It was subsequently fully restored by The Film Foundation, established by director Martin Scorsese and others in 1990.
- Quotes
Capt. Dimitri: [to the Countess] I apologize for my lips, Countess - and I apologize for my eyes - but I cannot apologize for my heart.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Man of a Thousand Faces (1957)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- La novela de un mujik
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $187,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 15m(75 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content