carljessieson I enjoyed this film a lot. It had good character establishment/development, good acting besides some over-obviousness at some points (which was characteristic of films in this era, so can't knock it too much). There was a multitude of great shots, creative angles, and innovative choices in editing- far more than I expected in a film from this time. The sound was clear and the lighting was impeccable. It was the most clean/professional-looking film thus far on my watchlist. The characters were very, very interesting. Lola Lola was hot and so was her attitude. Great performance by her, for sure, but the professor was truly outstanding. The range of emotions his character went through was so expansive, and so excellently portrayed. Great performances all around. The story was good, absolutely. Interesting, sexy, exciting, scary, tragic, and imperfect, of course. One thing I'm still adjusting to with watching old films is how insanely fast people fall in love??? It's like they have one good exchange and then they're embracing each other, grasping each other's biceps firmly with this abrupt burst of passion and commitment, touching noses. No one falls in love that fast. I don't know if their standards were different in real life back then or if they just hadn't worked out how to tell a story where love grows gradually instead of shooting up into the sky. It felt a little bit like lazy story-telling, but only on the romance level. The rest of it had normal pacing, for the most parts. It had its slow, boring moments, but it wasn't too bad. I guess the pacing was kinda weird, rather uneven. The professor's change in character was gradual, foreshadowed, and it made sense- but other developments I found were much too abrupt, without explanation. Anyway, I liked this film a lot. I do recommend it for a viewing. The conclusion was great, mildly disturbing. I wouldn't mind watching it again someday but I don't feel a need to include it in my collection anytime soon. 8/10 Bye love you

l_rawjalaurence THE BLUE ANGEL may have a hackneyed, quasi-melodramatic plot, but it is quite simply brilliant nonetheless. In her debut feature, Marlene Dietrich is both sexy and dominant; photographed in a variety of states of déshabillée by Von Sternberg, she come across as someone with an instinctive feel for the camera. Her songs are beautifully delivered, and her sheer presence within the frame is a delight. Emil Jannings is equally memorable as the gulled professor; in a film showing its origins in silent movies, he has a range of gestures and eye-work that are tremendously funny, especially in those sequences where he tries to keep his class of unruly students quiet, or when he tries yet fails to suppress his amorous feelings for Lola (Dietrich). The film's ending is both shocking and yet poignant, showing the depths to which humankind can be reduced once love gets in the way. When the Professor chases Lola for the final time, uttering the unearthly screams of a cockerel, we feel genuinely concerned for her safety. As with most UFA films of this period, THE BLUE ANGEL is distinguished by atmospheric lighting and use of shadows, especially in its portrayal of the seedy back-streets where the Blue Angel club is situated. Definitely a classic of its kind that stands up really well after eight decades.

funkyfry I can't say much about this film, having just seen it for the first time, but while I was impressed with Von Sternberg's direction, as usual, I felt that this film lacked substance and drive. The story is too predictable; maybe at its time, it had some novelty. I hoped that the road would twist in some unpredictable direction, but it simply loped along to its predictably depressing conclusion.Jannings and Dietrich are wonderfully cast and carry off their roles with perfection. Less convincing is Kurt Gerron's magician -- he seems like he would belong more as a bar-tender than as an impresario. The touches of humor are odd.... I found myself uncertain at times whether it was a comedy or a drama. Certainly, the film makes Jannings' imperious school professor a subject of so much ridicule that his fall from grace comes more as a relief than a tragedy.One would hope to find minor characters with some flash to add some interest to a simple story, but only Hans Albers' strongman can really make much of an impression next to Jannings and Dietrich.It's a pleasing film to watch, I enjoyed much of the atmosphere and so forth, but it didn't make much of a lasting impression on me I'm afraid.

dlee2012 The Blue Angel features a simple but effective narrative, showing the fall of a man into degradation and squalor. As such, it echoes the themes in early Weimar cinema such as Pandora's Box. The narrative is, indeed, so simple, that this early "talkie" could just as easily have been a silent film. Only rarely is the new sound technology explored to good effect, such as when songs can be heard when the doors from Lola's room to the stage are periodically opened and closed by characters. There is also, of course, the use of song, with Dietrich's voice showcased to good affect.Emil Jannings portrays the stereotype of an academic perfectly: arrogant, insular and with some minor eccentricities, he is unable to cope with life in the "real world" and this leads to his fall from grace. Initially, we in the audience, like his students, see him as a clown, a laughable, pompous yet bumbling figure. His ultimate fate is to be exposed to the whole town as a fool when, stripped of his power, he literally becomes a clown before seeking to return to the insularity of his old post.However, the Professor is not the only loathsome character in this film. The attitude of the students is as despicable as that of their tutor: with their arrogant and bullying behaviour, whilst they are his nemesis, they are also his mirror. They are growing into his image and, with his growing captivation with Lola, he is growing into theirs.Lola is an equally unlikable character and perhaps, once again, reflects concern amongst conservatives in Weimar society about the growing power of women. She is far smarter than the "learned" professor in terms of her ability to understand and manipulate people. Going out on the stage each night is the opposite to his insular world yet it his "act" of appearing respectable in society that this actress is able to quickly pull apart, exposing the shallow man inside.The bird motif used throughout the film is strikingly effective. At the start, the bird who can no longer sing is callously discarded by the housekeeper, just as the worn-out, useless Professor will be discarded, first by the school and then by society. The doomed bird motif is also prefigured by the birds near the clock as the procession of ghoulish statues marches past with each hour. Finally, the Professor himself is humiliated during the clown and magician routine, forced to have doves fly out from under his top hat and to crow like a rooster.Ultimately, this is a brilliant film and, like much late Weimar cinema, reflects themes of moral decline and degradation. This time, however, the character is deeply unlikable from the outset and his humiliation is really an increasing expose to the world of his pre-existing inner nature. He does not grow or transform as a character; rather, as his power is stripped, his true nature is revealed. The learned academic is the biggest fool of all. Stripped of his position and prestige, the academic is nothing more than a clown.