This peppy little fantasy with songs is like Weimar Germany's answer to the Jeanette MacDonald-Maurice Chevalier musicals (the story actually bears similarities to "The Love Parade.") It's easy to see from this why Anna Sten was brought to Hollywood as a Marlene Dietrich clone, as the resemblance is truly uncanny. Peter Lorre (fresh from "M") is adorable in his little sailor costume, and there's even a glimpse of the Comedian Harmonists!
3 Reviews
Correlated to a person's own taste and interest, on the whole, not half bad
A typical UFA film one should say, with brilliant stars from the day, namely Hans Albers, Anna Sten, Heinz Rühmann, Kurt Gerron and Peter Lorre (amongst others), along with Comedian Harmonists attached to the project (a huge plus back in the day as I am led to believe). With such an apparent formula for success, it is perhaps no wonder that on its release the film did seem to be, well, successful. After all, it is this film we have to thank specifically for Anne Sten's Hollywood career, as well as its name inspiration for a particular Tin Tin character.
The story is based around a perhaps familiar trope nowadays, maybe even a slightly overused one, of a sailor named Kapitän Craddock (played by Hans Albers of course) who is fed up with taking silly orders from his silly, young, objectively good-looking, single Queen of a fictitious country somewhere in the Balkans (concoctions about bogus royalties seemed to have been another of UFA's specialties). As one today might be able to predict, after Craddie sets sail for Monte Carlo in disobedience to his Queen's orders, he is not being reprimanded, but apparently set up to be pranked by the Queen herself who, disguised as a commoner, goes out of her way to make herself the object of Craddie's desires, with arguable success, albeit, in a curious fashion. With this the plot is basically set in motion. Obviously, there is a matter which leads to the naming of the film itself, however, I shall not focus on it here too much, as it is the characters themselves which led to my bemusement and puzzlement.
I should note here that I am aware, as you should be too, that this is a film made around 90 years ago, in a Germany that is very different from that of today. I am also aware, as a non-German being an added cherry on top, that the many jokes, gags and overall character demeanors are written to be familiar to a generation that came way earlier to that of mine. As such, however, out of honesty, I should think that, other than for historical curiosity, the film doesn't really hold up.
Above all else, what got me thinking that this film is possibly past its expiration date as far as relatability and sheer entertainment is concerned, relaid on the characters, or rather their motivations, or lack of.
Starting with the Queen, one might've tried to predict that after she meets Craddie, she falls in love with him, and thus forgets about any kinda prank, and at some point comes clean. This in a way kinda does happen, however, I was left second-guessing this right up until the last scene, as first, she makes Craddie lose all his winnings from the casino, doesn't really own up to it when Craddie overreacts, and when she does eventually reveal her identity near the end of the film, she backstabs Craddie apparently, by firing him from his post and threatening a jail sentence. Maybe this was the original intention of the writers, or maybe the subtitles missed something, I couldn't say, however to me it definitely made the film less enjoyable.
Craddie's character is more straightforward - he is a sailor, so he loves women, but loves freedom more. This is all fine, and in a way expected, however, as the Queen was just a sort of one-night stand for him, one cannot help but wonder why he sacrificed so much for her. His keenness towards her is not doubted, but as he had no grand ambitions with her, why did he put so much effort into their relationship? He buys her (back) the most expensive trinket at the jewelers, gambles to her request after he knows he shouldn't and after the whole blunder, doesn't just take back the necklace to revalue it for the exact price he needs, but instead finds it more noble to simply involve his men in a crazy attempt to get the exact same portion of his earnings back from the casino through force. Again, maybe this was intentional. After all, classed as a comedy, perhaps within this very absurdity lied the laughs. Regrettably, I couldn't say.
As already mentioned, to me the real value of this film lies in historical curiosity.
Hans Albers was a national treasure back in the day, and with a typical Hans Albers role, it was interesting to try to make out what made him such a star. Obviously, he had his good looks, apart from which, he also perhaps generally carried an image of the "ideal man". Clearly a real man all things considered, to both women and men - he is an authority to other men, but with a carefree and easy-going temperament, and a great seducer of women. No doubt as to why men might've taken to the character. With women, perhaps it was also his gentleness and slight paternity towards the woman he does eventually choose, which made him a catch in their eyes. He takes to a woman once her humanity and vulnerability is shown, not when she is solely trying to be a sex appeal. He then proceeds to care for her through both affection and material comfort. Never getting angry with her or showing any kind of suspicions of slyness, he seems to view her in an almost naive way, as a silly, little, childlike, beautiful creature who is courtly to be treated.
Another interesting thing to notice is the overall relationship between people. All in all, they seem to be more affectionate and dare I say more physical in expressing said affection, regardless of its form (romantic, friendly, parental, etc.), even when between two men. Male friends openly call each other terms of endearment like: "my dear", "my dear friend", "my son"... They openly hug each other, playfully slap each others faces and walk in arms side by side. All things considered, they seemed to be much more open in showing their emotions indirectly, rather than telling directly as seen today. Today, the build-up seems to be to the ultimate "I love you", where what goes on prior is left trivial in the grand scheme of things, as long as the end goal is reached. Affection seems to be expressed more and more only if it's a means or a hint for something yet to come, not for its current appreciation, and that's only when love is in its romantic form. A shame really, as it seems that in this respect, older films in general, seem to be more successful in showing strong emotions such as love, for example, in day-to-day doses. There is no "grand" gesture, a special person, or a wait for a special day deserving of opening up and showing "vulnerability". Perhaps back in the day such things weren't even considered a vulnerability, I couldn't say, but either way, it definitely leaves one with a bigger appreciation for just another normal day.
With all this being said, in getting back to this particular film, I think that on the whole, it can prove to be an enjoyable watch, all pending on what you hope to get out of it.
Tricycle0037 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
- A rather curious film - is what first comes to mind, when needing to describe it.
A typical UFA film one should say, with brilliant stars from the day, namely Hans Albers, Anna Sten, Heinz Rühmann, Kurt Gerron and Peter Lorre (amongst others), along with Comedian Harmonists attached to the project (a huge plus back in the day as I am led to believe). With such an apparent formula for success, it is perhaps no wonder that on its release the film did seem to be, well, successful. After all, it is this film we have to thank specifically for Anne Sten's Hollywood career, as well as its name inspiration for a particular Tin Tin character.
The story is based around a perhaps familiar trope nowadays, maybe even a slightly overused one, of a sailor named Kapitän Craddock (played by Hans Albers of course) who is fed up with taking silly orders from his silly, young, objectively good-looking, single Queen of a fictitious country somewhere in the Balkans (concoctions about bogus royalties seemed to have been another of UFA's specialties). As one today might be able to predict, after Craddie sets sail for Monte Carlo in disobedience to his Queen's orders, he is not being reprimanded, but apparently set up to be pranked by the Queen herself who, disguised as a commoner, goes out of her way to make herself the object of Craddie's desires, with arguable success, albeit, in a curious fashion. With this the plot is basically set in motion. Obviously, there is a matter which leads to the naming of the film itself, however, I shall not focus on it here too much, as it is the characters themselves which led to my bemusement and puzzlement.
I should note here that I am aware, as you should be too, that this is a film made around 90 years ago, in a Germany that is very different from that of today. I am also aware, as a non-German being an added cherry on top, that the many jokes, gags and overall character demeanors are written to be familiar to a generation that came way earlier to that of mine. As such, however, out of honesty, I should think that, other than for historical curiosity, the film doesn't really hold up.
Above all else, what got me thinking that this film is possibly past its expiration date as far as relatability and sheer entertainment is concerned, relaid on the characters, or rather their motivations, or lack of.
Starting with the Queen, one might've tried to predict that after she meets Craddie, she falls in love with him, and thus forgets about any kinda prank, and at some point comes clean. This in a way kinda does happen, however, I was left second-guessing this right up until the last scene, as first, she makes Craddie lose all his winnings from the casino, doesn't really own up to it when Craddie overreacts, and when she does eventually reveal her identity near the end of the film, she backstabs Craddie apparently, by firing him from his post and threatening a jail sentence. Maybe this was the original intention of the writers, or maybe the subtitles missed something, I couldn't say, however to me it definitely made the film less enjoyable.
Craddie's character is more straightforward - he is a sailor, so he loves women, but loves freedom more. This is all fine, and in a way expected, however, as the Queen was just a sort of one-night stand for him, one cannot help but wonder why he sacrificed so much for her. His keenness towards her is not doubted, but as he had no grand ambitions with her, why did he put so much effort into their relationship? He buys her (back) the most expensive trinket at the jewelers, gambles to her request after he knows he shouldn't and after the whole blunder, doesn't just take back the necklace to revalue it for the exact price he needs, but instead finds it more noble to simply involve his men in a crazy attempt to get the exact same portion of his earnings back from the casino through force. Again, maybe this was intentional. After all, classed as a comedy, perhaps within this very absurdity lied the laughs. Regrettably, I couldn't say.
As already mentioned, to me the real value of this film lies in historical curiosity.
Hans Albers was a national treasure back in the day, and with a typical Hans Albers role, it was interesting to try to make out what made him such a star. Obviously, he had his good looks, apart from which, he also perhaps generally carried an image of the "ideal man". Clearly a real man all things considered, to both women and men - he is an authority to other men, but with a carefree and easy-going temperament, and a great seducer of women. No doubt as to why men might've taken to the character. With women, perhaps it was also his gentleness and slight paternity towards the woman he does eventually choose, which made him a catch in their eyes. He takes to a woman once her humanity and vulnerability is shown, not when she is solely trying to be a sex appeal. He then proceeds to care for her through both affection and material comfort. Never getting angry with her or showing any kind of suspicions of slyness, he seems to view her in an almost naive way, as a silly, little, childlike, beautiful creature who is courtly to be treated.
Another interesting thing to notice is the overall relationship between people. All in all, they seem to be more affectionate and dare I say more physical in expressing said affection, regardless of its form (romantic, friendly, parental, etc.), even when between two men. Male friends openly call each other terms of endearment like: "my dear", "my dear friend", "my son"... They openly hug each other, playfully slap each others faces and walk in arms side by side. All things considered, they seemed to be much more open in showing their emotions indirectly, rather than telling directly as seen today. Today, the build-up seems to be to the ultimate "I love you", where what goes on prior is left trivial in the grand scheme of things, as long as the end goal is reached. Affection seems to be expressed more and more only if it's a means or a hint for something yet to come, not for its current appreciation, and that's only when love is in its romantic form. A shame really, as it seems that in this respect, older films in general, seem to be more successful in showing strong emotions such as love, for example, in day-to-day doses. There is no "grand" gesture, a special person, or a wait for a special day deserving of opening up and showing "vulnerability". Perhaps back in the day such things weren't even considered a vulnerability, I couldn't say, but either way, it definitely leaves one with a bigger appreciation for just another normal day.
With all this being said, in getting back to this particular film, I think that on the whole, it can prove to be an enjoyable watch, all pending on what you hope to get out of it.
Cute? Or rather: evil?
suchenwi14 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I must say that this movie really hurt me, being a German. But it's reality, so let's face it. Made in 1931, same year as M (or Frankenstein), this German movie was in recent years re-released on DVD, advertised as musical comedy.
What happens? Captain Craddock (Hans Albers), commanding a battleship of the fictional country of Pontenero (easily associating Montenegro, Balkan, Europe), is ordered to go to Livorno (Italy) to pick up his queen. Frustrated (among other things, by non-paid wages), he refuses the order and rather goes to Monte Carlo (Monaco). The queen takes it easy and goes there too. To pay the wages, she sells her chain of pearls for 100,000 Francs.
The captain takes the money, and later meets the queen in the casino without knowing her. They go gambling at roulette. He wins some, loses some. In the final rounds, he risks the wage money - and loses it.
You can't call him anything but a bad loser as he threatens to bombard Monte Carlo (hence the title) if they don't pay him back his losses. Guns are pointed, crew is ready, people are fleeing - in the end, a boat comes with the money. The captain is arrested by his queen, but escapes to take a cruiser to Honolulu (of all places).
If this movie (starring Hans Albers, Heinz Ruehmann, Peter Lorre etc.) was considered funny in 1931's Germany, it's no wonder that two years later the Nazis won elections without much fuss. And all that came after.
Early on, Heinz Ruehmann (playing first officer) sits on a cannon for fishing - the most obvious phallic symbol I've ever seen in a movie. Later, those guns are fired, but happily only for farewell salute.
This movie is interesting historically - but sure isn't cute. As I see it, it rather displays blatant international immorality (blackmail with naval power). I thought that German movies before 1933 were morally better than after - boy, was I wrong... Even some pieces by the Comedian Harmonists can't help.
What happens? Captain Craddock (Hans Albers), commanding a battleship of the fictional country of Pontenero (easily associating Montenegro, Balkan, Europe), is ordered to go to Livorno (Italy) to pick up his queen. Frustrated (among other things, by non-paid wages), he refuses the order and rather goes to Monte Carlo (Monaco). The queen takes it easy and goes there too. To pay the wages, she sells her chain of pearls for 100,000 Francs.
The captain takes the money, and later meets the queen in the casino without knowing her. They go gambling at roulette. He wins some, loses some. In the final rounds, he risks the wage money - and loses it.
You can't call him anything but a bad loser as he threatens to bombard Monte Carlo (hence the title) if they don't pay him back his losses. Guns are pointed, crew is ready, people are fleeing - in the end, a boat comes with the money. The captain is arrested by his queen, but escapes to take a cruiser to Honolulu (of all places).
If this movie (starring Hans Albers, Heinz Ruehmann, Peter Lorre etc.) was considered funny in 1931's Germany, it's no wonder that two years later the Nazis won elections without much fuss. And all that came after.
Early on, Heinz Ruehmann (playing first officer) sits on a cannon for fishing - the most obvious phallic symbol I've ever seen in a movie. Later, those guns are fired, but happily only for farewell salute.
This movie is interesting historically - but sure isn't cute. As I see it, it rather displays blatant international immorality (blackmail with naval power). I thought that German movies before 1933 were morally better than after - boy, was I wrong... Even some pieces by the Comedian Harmonists can't help.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
