Mockery

Not to go into Tim Robbins mode from The Player, but think of this film as Downstairs (1932) meets He Who Gets Slapped (1924) meets The Last Command (1928). It blends class differences, the pain of humiliation, and the Russian Revolution into a bit of a mess, but it's a mess with Lon Chaney, who I always find mesmerizing. Here he plays a Russian peasant, and opposite him is beautiful Barbara Bedford, who more than keeps up with him as an aristocrat. During the civil war he protects her out in the country (how she ever managed to get in this position isn't explained), taking a whipping to conceal her identify which even he doesn't fully know. She's rescued and they're brought to her manor, where he expects her to live up to her promise to be his friend forever, but she simply offers him a servant's job and makes it clear that he's of a different class. In addition to being disillusioned, he endures the pain of being yelled at and called an idiot by the older lady of the house.

I wish I could say this film is some grand metaphor for the Revolution, with the peasant becoming woke to the hypocrisy of the ruling class and turning on them. It briefly has those overtones, when another servant tells him "You fool! You take a beating because an aristocrat promises you something? Do you think those upstairs pigs ever keep their promises to us downstairs?" The servants in the house look forward to the fall of the aristocracy, and have a little revolution of their own in the kitchen, ignoring the bell ringing for service and getting drunk. It's a situation where everyone seems repelling - the aristocracy for living off the vast wealth inequality (with the couple in this house also being war profiteers), as well as the marauding revolutionaries and peasants, who on three different occasions in the film look to rape Bedford's character. In one of the better scenes, one with real menace, it's Chaney's character who does this, and she repels him with the heel of her hand pushed up under his chin with all of her strength (which looked rather painful to Chaney).

The film could have gone to some pretty dark places or made an actual statement, but unfortunately it cops out on all fronts. There is a romantic angle (with Ricardo Cortez) which might have worked had the guy come back and killed the peasant, or vice versa, but the film instead wants both of them to be heroes, opting for a contrived and unsatisfactory ending. Despite that, I liked Chaney and Bedford enough to enjoy seeing this film, especially since it moved along pretty well over its 70-minute runtime.

As a lifelong fan of Chaney Sr., this film was on a very short list of existing Chaney films I had yet to see. I watched it last night for the first time and was pleasantly surprised. Although I admit this is far from Chaney's best work, I suspect many of the negative reviews, both then and now, come from unmet expectations. "Mockery" does not have grotesque make-up like "Hunchback of Notre Dame". It lacks bizarre story elements like "The Unknown". Chaney only plays one character instead of two, as he did in "A Blind Bargain". And if you wanted to see sets and scenery on a grand scale, as in "Phantom of the Opera", forget about it.

So what does this film have? Well, this melodrama, set in Russia around the time of the revolution, revolves around the theme you see in most of Chaney's films: unrequited love. Chaney's character is a peasant named Sergei, who reminded me of "Lenny", the character portrayed by Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Sergei is a good hearted simpleton, unable to understand matters of love. Sergei's love for the Countess, like Quasimodo's longing for Esmarelda, is destined for failure, but he's the only one who cannot see this.

As the story unfolds, we get glimpses into the good and bad (or Jekyll and Hyde, if you will) found in all of us. Sergei's pure love turns to lust. Tatiana's indifference evolves into compassion.

If you're expecting a 1927 era melodrama, you'll get a good one. If you're expecting something bizarre, like "Novokursk After Midnight", you'll have trouble keeping awake.

I'm a fan but have never seen this Lon Chaney film before. The intensity he brings to his slow-minded character is magnificent.

The title cards keep you on pace with the imagery very well. I didn't especially dislike the ones 'upstairs' but did feel empathy for the peasants 'downstairs.'

Nicely paced and always interesting throughout the story. It was a pleasure to see.

It's easy to spot Károly Huszár (Ivan the Gatekeeper), a familiar face in some great films like. The Blue Angel and The Man Who Laughs. Information about when and where he died at the age of 58 is sketchy, would be nice to know his complete story. IMDB: "His death place and date is still unconfirmed. He and his wife left Hungary in 1941 because of the Holocaust and tried to get into the United States. Some sources say that he died in Tokyo, Japan in 1942. Others that his train was stopped by the Soviet army and he was imprisoned in a Gulag labor camp in Karaganda, Kazahstan where he performed in the camp theatre company. He died there from diphtheria in June, 1943."

Spend a little time with this film, I find it rewarding.

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.

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.