The Cabinet Of Dr Caligari Analysis

If film scholars are right that 1920’s “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” is the cinema’s first masterpiece, as I think they are, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that “Caligari” is a flawlessly perfect film in all senses with exquisite craft and supreme importance. Honestly, I can’t help judging the film by today’s standards in films. Delving deep into the mind of a madman, “Caligari” is a film prone to unsettle its viewers, especially those who are watching it a century later, in early few minutes with its “over-expressive” acting and strange atmosphere. The essence of this argument is that the film, considered a one-of-a-kind masterpiece from the silent era, has a set of existent imperfections within itself along with its ingenious
The implication here is that these problems are able to cause the viewer’s attention to cast away or get bewildered. It might be said that the primitiveness is due to the fact that the medium of film was only in its birth stage. But the problem with this, in my view, is because of the state of art of silent films. Originally, the medium of movies was started out from the stage of the theatre, taking over its theatrical model and techniques. As any viewer could notice, actors display large dramatic movements and gestures to express their excitement, wonder, and dismay. Professor at UCLA, Peter Reiher agrees when he writes “Theater at the turn of the century was solidly melodramatic, with acting that would be laughed off the stage, today.” Indeed, those who watched the film can recognize several similarities between the film and the theatre plays, from the significantly expressive acting to static camera, and to staging of mise-en-scene. For instance, let’s just remember how the audience reacts when Dr. Caligari proudly presents his creation, somnambulist Cesare, at the village fair. Also, modern viewers, undoubtedly, do not find silent movies easy to watch. The complete numbness of sound in the scenes may cause inattention for film-goers who watches immensely immersible movies with blaring sound
The danger about tinting is that the overall look of shadowy but with multicolored hues can devalue the whole face and recognition of the movie. People may claim that the film was tinted due to the technical capability of the days, but I may object that the filmmakers of “Caligari” had a choice go with classic pure black & white, like most movies from that age, instead of tinting their artwork in permanently saturated colors. Tintings were switched from scene to scene, eventually confusing its viewers. One example is that, in a scene of Cesare’s death, filmmakers changed the tint from blue to sepia to signal the day or night. (The Unaffiliated, 2013) But, I could not figure out was it the day or the night the color of sepia signaled for. I believe that I am not the only viewer out of millions who was confused by that change of colors. I can grant that the purity of black & white rings true to the heart more than colors