Andrew Boone
Carl Theodore Dreyer is one of the great silent filmmakers in the history of the medium. "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan", however, is a disappointing effort in his otherwise impressive body of work. This is my opinion mostly because of the film's obtrusive political bias, something I'd never seen Dreyer descend to before. Of course, it's an early work for him, so inasmuch as the great Danish master needs a pass from the likes of this humble viewer, he will receive one."Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is a 1920 Danish film, which I've read from multiple accounts is Dreyer's second effort. IMDb lists it as his third. The Danish film "The President" (1919) — an impressive spiritual melodrama — was his debut. He also made a Swedish film called "The Parson's Widow" in 1920, the same year as this film. It was more of a romantic comedy melodrama, and was decent, if not especially impressive. Somewhere around this time comes "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". Dreyer, so they say, had seen D.W. Griffith's 1916 epic "Intolerance", and was inspired by it to make this film. The influence is conspicuous, to say the least. Like Griffith's film, Dreyer's film is a four-part anthology, in which each segment is connected not narratively (apart from the character of Satan), but rather thematically. "Intolerance" wasn't Griffith's only film of this sort. "Home Sweet Home" (1914) was very much the same structure. In that film, like in this film by Dreyer, the first segment is the catalyst which paves the way for the remaining three stories. In the case of Dreyer's film, each segment is about Satan's temptation of an individual in the midst of a moral crisis. As a result, the first segment — the original temptation, so to speak — is a short story of the Passion of Christ. One might expect Dreyer to have opted for the truly primordial story of temptation and original sin: Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but for whatever reason, he did not do so. Perhaps it was too mythical, and he wanted something that could be more effectively based in realism.There is a tapestry woven through each of the four segments, and it is in this tapestry that Dreyer forays into political territory that I'd never seen him approach before. In all four segments, the common theme is not only temptation, but more specifically, the temptation to inform on a friend. In the segment about the Passion, it is Judas who is tempted by Satan to inform against Christ to the Sanhedrin. Likewise, in every segment, there is an organization that holds the power of life and death, and uses it, quite recklessly, for their own aims. In the second segment, it is the Inquisition. The third segment is set during the French Revolution in the late 18th century, and this is where Dreyer's political bias really stars to rear its ugly head. His attempts to portray the revolutionaries as relentlessly evil and the poor aristocratic victims as unfailingly innocent were nothing less than ridiculous. And it's not about whether he's right or wrong -- whether I agree with him or not -- it's simply that I strongly dislike bias in cinema. An effort to see both sides of the equation should be instinctive for a great filmmaker like Dreyer. Here, it is certainly not.The fourth segment is set in then-modern day Finland, during the country's civil war, and Dreyer's sympathies once again lie with the aristocracy. He celebrates the heroism of the Whites, who can do no wrong, and his anti-communist sentiments against the Reds, composed mostly of the working class, left nothing wanting, even by McCarthy's standards. Truly, this film can be seen as right-wing propaganda. Dreyer is clearly in full support of social inequality, and while I try to make a point not to let my personal opinions effect my viewing experiences with films, I do, as I said before, have a strong aversion to this kind of bias, even in instances in which my opinions and the filmmaker's coincide. Really, the moral certainty here is legitimately disturbing.Setting aside the politics, and looking at the film from a strictly cinematic angle, it still fails to stand out as high quality cinema. The narrative lacks depth, and the dialogue is often very poor (the last line of the film is honestly one of the most cringeworthy I've ever heard -- or read, in this case -- in the history of cinema). Griffith's influence is noticeable, although Dreyer brings to the film some of his own technique, which he was still in the process of honing at this point in his career. He utilizes color tinting, which I think the film would have been better off without.With all that criticism out of the way, though, one can certainly find commendable qualities in "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". I think it's the weakest of the Dreyer films I've seen, but it's entertaining enough to justify a viewing, and possesses the beginnings of the unique element of spirituality that Dreyer would refine and perfect in the years to come. One of the film's strongest assets for me was the portrayal of Satan as a sympathetic character. God has condemned him to tempt us, but his countenance is one of remorse, not evil, and he laments every soul that capitulates to his temptation.I've always wondered how much influence these Scandanavian directors like Dreyer and Victor Sjöström may have had on the filmmakers of the coming decade (the '20s), particularly the German expressionists. It's possible there's some value here in that regard, but overall, I think "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is of most interest to serious silent film enthusiasts or Dreyer completists. It is not, by any means, essential silent cinema.RATING: 5.00 out of 10 stars
Edgar Soberon Torchia
"Leaves Out of the Book of Satan" is a complex motion picture for someone who had only directed one film, but it is certainly a setback in Carl Theodor Dreyer's growth. Compared to "The President", a small but vivid work, this long film is a pompous exercise that in the end distracts from the best efforts in his filmography. Much has been said about the influence of D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" on this film, but little is told about the Danish long tradition of feature-length films and how these probably influenced the American filmmaker. So it is a two-fold affair that adds very little to the appreciation of "Leaves Out of the Book of Satan". Here Dreyer deals with Evil as a decisive factor in the evolution of mankind, in a sort of mystic treatise for which he managed a big budget, several casts and four stories. Helse Nilssen plays Satan very well, first as a Pharisee inducing Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus, then as an Inquisitor during the imperial days of Spain, followed by the impersonation of a fanatic Jacobin during French revolution, and finally, in (then) present day, as a Bolshevik monk (resembling Rasputin) during Russian invasion of Finland. The first two parts and the conclusion last around 30 minutes each, but the French episode is long, and Satan enters late in the story. Unfortunately I share the opinion that this film is of utmost interest only to Dreyer's completists.
FerdinandVonGalitzien
"Blade Af Satans Bog" ( Leaves Out Of The Book Of Satan ) (1921) was Herr Dreyer's most ambitious early silent film, a big "Nordisk" film production that depicts a challenge between Satan and God spanning 2000 years; fortunately the Danish Film Institute has shortened such a huge lapse of time to 157 minutes in a recent and beautiful film restoration for the pleasure of silent film fans around the world.This age old conflict is represented by four episodes: the betrayal of Herr Jesus by Herr Judas, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and the Finnish civil war in 1918. In "Blade AF Satans Bog" there are echoes of Griffith and certainly "Intolerance" (1916) was a big influence on Dreyer in terms of his film's construction and narrative not to mention the moral treatise. However Dreyer, unlike Griffith, is more interested in ethics than spectacle. Blade Af Satans Bog" is basically a moral story in the shape of a big film production, in which evil deeds and human weaknesses became a metaphor and eternal parable. The moral treatise mentioned by this Herr Graf is probably the most interesting aspect of the picture as the Danish director carefully develops the struggle between evil and good: Satan disguised as a Pharisee, a Grand Inquisitor, a Jacobin leader and a Bolshevik monk, must tempt his victims by appealing to their inner human weaknesses. In the background to this fight is religion, betrayal, ambition and power. The fallen angel knows how to persuade men towards his evil ends but is aware that there is no real comfort finally in his cruel doings. It is this aspect of the story that really counts for Herr Dreyer and he takes splendid advantage of the many technical resources at his disposal for this big budget film.Herr George Schnéevoigt was the cinematographer of the film and does excellent work, especially during the scene wherein Herr Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. He also captures the dark atmosphere of the Inquisition and provides a human portrait of Frau Marie Antoinette. The cinematographer's use of light and shadows captures the tragic mood perfectly. This Herr Graf does not overlook the splendid and restrained acting by Herr Helge Nissen who, as the wicked Herr Satan, achieves a brilliant portrayal in his four different guises.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must continue to speak evil of one of his Teutonic rich heiress to another one.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com
