MissSimonetta It boggles the brain how the 1926 Michael Strogoff has only been released on VHS and so little discussed in the nine decades since its premiere. It only has intelligence, beautiful production values, fluid cinematography, excellent performances, and action scenes which put the over-choreographed slow-mo fests of modern blockbusters to shame.The film is a perfect showcase for the technical dazzle of the late silent era. Jumpy, jittery, broadly-acted flickers these were not: the camera glides through scenes, the editing is as fast-paced as the action, and the acting is restrained.Much has been said of Ivan Mosjoukine's turn in the lead, but for me, the show is utterly stolen by his leading lady, Nathalie Kovanko. Her character Nadia is no fluttering damsel; risking her life to protect her loved ones and even saving Strogoff several times, she is a heroine in her own right.All in all, Kino Lorber or Criterion should jump on this, or at least Grapevine.

FerdinandVonGalitzien Due to his advanced age, this German count remembers very well (actually, again because of his many years, perhaps not all that well) the success of the famous novel "Michel Strogoff" written by the French writer Herr Jules Verne some centuries ago.As every longhaired youngster knows, aristocrats prefer to spend their idle time in trifling matters, so this Herr Von acted consistently and avoided the great effort of reading the book and instead waited for some highly reputable and skilled film director to properly adapt that novel about the courier of the Czar for the silent screen.And that important silent film adaptation of Herr Verne's "Michel Strogoff" came in the silent year of 1926 thanks to Herr Viktor Tourjansky, who surrounded by a crew of mostly Russian émigrés like himself, made an excellent French-German silent film production. This was a perfect match, that is to say: a Russian crew for a book set in old Russia for a French silent film production of a famous French novel ( obviously the German presence gave weight to the production ).The film is a lavish big budgeted production, appropriate for such a vigorous novel. The magnificent décors are by Herr Alexandre Lochakoff who with such a Russian name obviously knew very well what he was illustrating and there is also the splendid art direction by Herr Noé Bloch and the great Russian star Ivan Moskoujine as the title character. Some of the battle scenes are set in Latvia and were done with the help of the Latvian army itself (with the permission of the Latvian Minister Of War, natürlich!) and there are also some coloured scenes included in the film that give to the oeuvre a special atmosphere of decadent antiquity, especially in the Russian court sequences. The diversity of cast and crew suggests a Tower of Babel but the mixture of the different elements gives charm and effectiveness to the oeuvre that during it's almost three hours running time maintains the rhythm and interest in what is a splendid classic adventure, very well structured and entertaining.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count is waiting for aristocratic Herr Postman.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/

briantaves This is one of the most important of the early versions among some 300 adaptations of Verne stories to movies and television that have been produced around the world. To pioneering filmmakers, Verne was a contemporary author of international repute, and his Verne's global reputation was still at its peak. One or two new books had been published annually since 1863, and even after Verne's death in 1905, posthumously issued works continued to appear regularly, with the last original book published in 1919.Verne also knew the power of his novels off the printed page. Verne was also an active playwright, who had adapted such novels as Around the World in 80 Days and Michael Strogoff into phenomenally popular stage productions. Indeed, Verne had predicted the invention of motion pictures in his 1888 novel, The Castle in the Carpathians. Even before Verne's 1905 death, he was probably aware that his stories were proving a source of inspiration for the new medium of motion pictures; several adaptations had already appeared in France. One of the early filmmakers to tackle Verne stories was none other than the writer's son, Michel Verne, who, after his father's death filmed six of his novels in France.Michael Strogoff was one of Verne's best known stories to readers and theater-goers at the dawn of the 20th century. The 1876 novel had been translated into some 20 languages, including Chinese and Japanese. The first three film versions, in 1908, 1910, and 1914, were made in the United States.When the story was next brought to the screen, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, it had acquired distinct political implications. The novel Michael Strogoff had been originally subtitled Courier of the Czar. In the mid-1920s, a story of Czarist Russia by a French writer seemed a perfect film production for a community of white Russian filmmakers, exiled from their homeland and working together in France. The prospective star of MICHEL STROGOFF, Ivan Mozhukin, had been the most popular screen star in Russian films of the Czarist era, and had since won acclaim from French audiences. Mosjoukine wrote the adaptation of Verne's story in collaboration with director Viatcheslav Tourjansky and writer Boris De Fast, who also plays the role of Feofar Khan.Production of MICHEL STROGOFF lasted nearly a year, traveling to Norway for the Siberian exteriors and shooting the battle scenes with over 6000 soldiers of the Latvian army and cavalry. The adaptation followed the novel more closely than any other of the other screen adaptations before or since. Thanks to its scale and enormous popular success, MICHEL STROGOFF was distributed in many countries. In the United States it was imported by Universal Pictures, who, however, cut nearly an hour from its length.Ten years after this version, producer Joseph Ermolieff, another member of the white Russian film-making community, filmed a series of versions of Michael Strogoff in France, Germany, the United States, and Mexico. The director of the 1926 version, Tourjansky, returned to the subject again in 1961 with THE TRIUMPH OF MICHAEL STROGOFF starring Curt Jurgens, a sequel to a version of the original novel made in 1956 with Jurgens.In both of Tourjansky's versions, in 1926 and 1961, he treats Strogoff's journey with an epic sensibility as a tribute to the glory of Czarist Russia. The Czar and his people are shown to be bound together in mutual devotion to the motherland. The concept of class so central to communist thinking in the Soviet Union of the 1920s is completely denied in MICHEL STROGOFF, portraying Czar and peasant as a single entity thinking and behaving alike. Class distinctions are shown to be fluid by the hero's own evolution, and his romance with Nadia.Consequently, for over forty years after the Russian Revolution, exiled white Russian filmmakers in Europe and in the United States made a series of six films of Verne's novel of the adventures of the Czar's courier. Finally, a 1971 version directed by Eriprando Visconti offered a leftist response utilizing a Socialist perspective on the Verne narrative.For years, the 1926 version of MICHEL STROGOFF was believed to be nearly lost, and only a three-reel 9.5 mm. Pathescope version for home distribution seemed to survive. However, in 1988, the Cinémathèque Français restored the entire full-length original French version, in all of its colors and tints. It was first shown theatrically in the United States in 1997, but has yet to be widely seen.

Rosabel This is a gorgeous and visually exciting film, which has held up exceptionally well in the 80 years since it was made. The story is quite fast-paced, considering its length and the absence of dialogue except for the titles. Since silent movies have to depend on much more physical acting to get across the story, moods and personalities of the characters, they can often lapse into sluggish spells, with actors piling up the emoting to get the message over. Not this film. The acting for the most part is very natural, and Mosjoukine is so sensitive and accomplished that he can convey every type of emotion as easily and efficiently as a modern actor, with all the advantages of sound. I really can't say enough about his performance; he does everything - humor, shyness, pride, rage, shame, love - you name it.There's one scene where he's overjoyed that his horse has managed to find him in the midst of a warzone, only for it to be shot dead a moment later by attacking Tartars. The way he goes in a few second from a sort of quiet joy to heartbroken grief over this poor horse is just breathtaking. He was obviously a professional of the highest quality, and it's a pity he's nearly forgotten today. At least this film is beautifully restored, and may introduce people to an actor who deserves to be counted among the great performers of silent film.