The Faust story has been adapted innumerable times. I have seen three adaptations: "Faust" (1926, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau), "All that money can buy" (1941, William Dieterle) and this one of 1950 by Rene Clair.
It is interesting to see how different directors give a different interpretation to the story, maybe under influence of their national culture. The American production of Dieterle for example is by far the most materialistic interpretation, as the title already indicates. The European interpretations are more about non materialistic values as scientific curiosity and love (with the accent changing from the former to the latter when the wish of Faust for eternal youth has been granted by the Devil). Within the European interpretations the German one of Faust is much more pessimistic then the French one of Clair.
Not only the Faust character gives rise to different interpretations but also the Devil / Mephistopheles character. In "Le beaute du Diable" Michel Simon plays a sort of funny apprentice Devil, just like Henry Travers plays an apprentice angel in "It's a wonderful life" (1946, Frank Capra)
It is interesting to see how different directors give a different interpretation to the story, maybe under influence of their national culture. The American production of Dieterle for example is by far the most materialistic interpretation, as the title already indicates. The European interpretations are more about non materialistic values as scientific curiosity and love (with the accent changing from the former to the latter when the wish of Faust for eternal youth has been granted by the Devil). Within the European interpretations the German one of Faust is much more pessimistic then the French one of Clair.
Not only the Faust character gives rise to different interpretations but also the Devil / Mephistopheles character. In "Le beaute du Diable" Michel Simon plays a sort of funny apprentice Devil, just like Henry Travers plays an apprentice angel in "It's a wonderful life" (1946, Frank Capra)