Directed by F. W. Murnau

Position on the list (at time of viewing): 170

Another of Murnau’s silent masterpieces, although still not even close to his highest rated film on the list. It tells perhaps the simplest story of any silent film I have ever seen, and yet still manages to command a range of emotion that for me was unprecedented in film. It was part of a brief movement in German film that attempted to pare down the previously bombastic genre into something simpler and more psychological that roughly translates to ‘Chamber Drama.’ The overall effect of this change of focus is probably the most moving film yet on the list in terms of its raw ability to evince emotion from the viewer.

The plot of the film is an incredibly slight thing. It’s about a very simple older man (Emil Jannings) who works as a doorman at a fancy hotel who loses his job because he’s getting too old to do it anymore. That’s functionally the entire plot of the film. I was really surprised at how much I liked this one. It was one of the Murnau films I had not only never seen, but never even heard of, and when I saw its high place on the list I was incredibly skeptical. It really packs a punch, though, and I think that’s largely due to the format. One of the conceits of doing these pared down psychological dramas was to use as few intertitles as possible, because it was thought that they got in the way of the story and the characters. Because of this, The Last Laugh uses only one title card in the entire film, and even this one is used in what I think is a really interesting way. It has a profound effect on the connection the modern viewer has with the film. It lets you sit in the situation with the characters, and lets the acting (which is much more subtle in this than in most of its contemporaries) speak for itself.

I was frankly astonished by how sad this movie made me feel. Pretty much the only two things I had really felt in previous films were academic interest and amusement at the legitimately great comedies. This was the first drama to actually move me, not quite to tears or anything, but to really feel for the character. It’s such a simple thing, to lose a job, but they make you feel how it ripples out through this poor man’s day-to-day life and acquaintances. It is, quite frankly, devastating to him and to the viewer. In many ways it reminds me of the peerless Au Hasard, Balthazar in the way it takes a very small and simple story and turns it into a heartbreaking allegory for the cruelties of people and life. It’s a bit like being hit over the head with a blunt club, but it works. That’s more than I can say for many movies even later in the list, so it deserves recognition. In addition to its emotional impact, the movie actually has a really interesting metatextual flourish (unlike the sophistic turn in Foolish Wives I mentioned many weeks ago). The movie manages to actually say something interesting about the nature of narrative and how stories work with a single intertitle that doesn’t (to me) feel forced or awkward.

There are still problems with the movie. Even at only 77 minutes, it’s still a little bit too long, belaboring a few points for longer than is necessary. I also got a pretty bad transfer of the movie, making it more difficult to see some of the nuances of acting and maybe some of the more interesting stuff Murnau was doing with the camera. This is by no means the movie’s fault, but it may have affected my experience negatively. The biggest issue, though, is the ending of the movie, which many viewers might see as a cop out on the previous authenticity and naked pain of what comes before. I’m personally torn on it. When I watched the movie, I actually really liked the ending and thought it was just about perfect, but the more I’ve thought about it the less sure I am that it really works for me. It is, of course, difficult to discuss without ruining the plot of the film, but I think it has a lot to do with what the viewer wants out of a movie. The ending here is definitely a contrivance, but it’s an interesting and engaging one. The more frustrated one is by artificiality in film, the less well the ending here is going to go over.

Overall, though, that’s not nearly enough to scuttle the film. It would be worth the watch with or without the ending for seeing how confidently and effortlessly Murnau advances the possibilities of film as a medium in a work that’s not even 90 minutes long. It’s something that he’ll do again in a few more years, but we’ll get to that. Although I can’t bring myself to give it a totally unreserved recommendation, there is more than enough here that merits a second viewing from my perspective. Maybe if I watch it again I’ll finally be able to decide if I like the ending or not.

Overall: