Mon 17 Nov 2014
Movie Review: PEOPLE ON SUNDAY (1930).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews , Silent films[9] Comments
PEOPLE ON SUNDAY. Filmstudio Berlin, Germany, 1930. Originally released as Menschen am Sonntag. Erwin Splettstößer (taxi driver), Brigitte Borchert (record seller), Wolfgang von Waltershausen (wine seller), Christl Ehlers, (an extra in films), Annie Schreyer (model). Screenplay: Curt Siodmak, Robert Siodmak (source material), Edgar G. Ulmer, Billy Wilder. Cinematography: Eugen Schüfftan, Fred Zinnemann. Producers: Seymour Nebenzal & Edgar G. Ulmer. Directors: Kurt Siodmak, Robert Siodmak, Edgar G. Ulmer, Fred Zinnemann, Rochus Gliese (uncredited).
Jon and I saw this a couple of nights ago as a restored print at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, introduced by Arianne Ulmer, Edgar Ulmer’s daughter, with live piano accompaniment by Michael Mortilla.
It’s a long list of credits for a film with virtually no plot, and I’m not sure if anybody knows now who did what in putting the film together. It was a collaborative effort, or so I’m inclined to assume, with no studio backing, making this possibly the first “indy” film. The actors, as per the credits, played themselves as a group of friends and acquaintances who on a Sunday afternoon go to a park with a lake and bathing area in or near Berlin to spend the day together.
Two men, two young ladies, and one wife or girl friend of one of the men who stays home in bed all day. They pair off, laugh, play, flirt, and go off in the woods together, but in this last instance, the pair in question are not necessarily the two who met at a train station the day before to set up the date for this particular Sunday.
The next day it is back to work, but in the meantime we have a small time capsule of what life may have been for the working class in Germany before the small man with the mustache rose to power, lending a certain poignancy to the film that probably was not intended, although who knows, since I wasn’t there, it may have been.
Watching this film feels at times as though someone is showing you a home movie, made with a small camera without sound, as many of my father’s family movies were made. And yet, despite a story line that is so flimsy as so nearly not exist, some of the filming techniques, the cutting of one scene to another, the angles of the shots and so on, foreshadow what was to come in the careers of those who created this film.
Unhappily the men, who flirt with two other women in a boat on the lake right before the eyes of their dates for the day, are not very likeable, while the girls are pretty but not beautiful by any means. Brigitte Borchert, who is the blonde girl in the photos you see, died in 2011 at the age of 100, and this is the only film she made.
As amateurs, the players play themselves very naturally, and perhaps this explains why their performances do not display the “overacting” that is so often associated with silent films.
This is considered a classic movie by many sources, but in my opinion, only because of its historical significance in film making, not because it represents a giant leap in storytelling.
November 17th, 2014 at 1:13 am
Also, prior to the movie, they showed two trailers. One, for “The Black Cat” and the other for Ulmer’s “Beyond The Time Barrier” which I reviewed here this summer:
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=27628
November 17th, 2014 at 7:00 am
Thank you for a good review.
I agree: People on Sunday is not a classic- but it is an interesting film.
There are notes in my Siodmak article:
http://mikegrost.com/siodmak.htm#Sunday
***
Before Wall Street poured big money into Hollywood in 1923, many films were made at small “independent” studios and companies. So much of 1909-1922 Hollywood can be considered Independent film.
November 17th, 2014 at 11:06 am
I’ve looked on the Internet to find a definition of “independent film” that fits the statement I made, and came up with this one that seems to do what I want:
“An independent film is one where the investor(s) has no expectation of a return of their investment much less a return *on* their investment. Budget/producer (studios included)/cast have no impact on the ‘independent’ definition. Any film where investors do have an expectation of seeing their investment returned is one of the following: Studio, Dependent or Co-Dependent.”
by Mark Lipsky
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120613063138AAtsDHY
It’s not a point I feel I have any grounds to stand on, though, other than this. I’ll stay out of any further discussion, but the floor is open for other opinions, as always.
November 17th, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Steve,
That is in no way a proper definition. Mike Grost pretty well nailed it. An independent film is any picture produced without corporate or industrial support, and there are many of them, so identifying the titles can go on for quite a while. Some of these, were subsequently sold or licensed to major distribution firms, but they began life in an office or living room with people kicking around ideas. Tomy Martin, though uncredited, co-produced Casbah, released by Universal, and all of the Ida Lupino pictures for Filmmakers were independent. Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. along with his wife, and Charlie Chaplin are the definition of successful independent films, and of course they later created UA. The world is littered with them, and some made quite a bit of money. Edgar Ulmer made quite a few of these, before and during his Hollywood career. All three of his Louis Hayward pictures would fit this classification, and money, though not necessarily of Edgar did change hands.
November 17th, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Steve,
I’ve been using the same concept of “independent film” as Barry.
They are films made and financed outside of the big studios.
Today this includes people like Jim Jarmusch, who funds his films completely independently of the studios.
But back in old Hollywood, it includes a lot of Westerns, crime films and everything else.
For example, the original Stagecoach, with John Ford and John Wayne, is an independent film. It wasn’t produced by a studio. It was made by indy producer Walter Wanger. See:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0911137/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm
Many independent films in this era were released through United Artists. UA didn’t produce much of anything in this era. It distributed films made by independent producers.
November 17th, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Mark Lipsky is pretty well-known as an independent movie producer, but maybe he was pulling our collective legs when he posted that definition.
Here’s some info on Lipsky:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/114639|0/Mark-Lipsky/
Since I don’t think that link is going to work, I’ll quote:
“This film marketing, advertising and public relations executive made his mark in the new burst of independent filmmaking in the USA since the 1980s. Mark Lipsky has also produced for TV, helped to launch the Sarasota Film Festival and has handled marketing for the Independent Feature Film market in New York City. He first became a force in indie films in 1986 when he was named executive vice president of Miramax Films and supervised all sales, marketing, public relations and advertising for the company’s releases during the period when Miramax became a household name in entertainment circles and the top indie distributor.”
The LACMA program calls the movie “An early independent film blending documentary and loosely scripted fiction…”
Best to leave it at that!
November 17th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
I think you and Barry have it right, though in a real sense Goldwyn, Selznick, and many of the big star productions companies like John Wayne’s Batjac were independents even though like him he had a distribution deal with Warners or another studio. KING KONG is an independent as are the Bond films, because the studios would never have made them on their own.
But in general when using the term independent they are talking a further remove from that from the studios.
Amazing list of contributors to this film, which seems more like some of the naturalistic French and other European cinema of the period than that of Lang, Murnau, Dreyer, and the like.
I didn’t know the Siodmak’s ever talked to each other enough to actually collaborate.
November 17th, 2014 at 6:54 pm
Selznick is an excellent example, David. As is Goldwyn, of big money independents, and while I do agree that many who use the term apply it to smaller, or lower budget film projects, the term has far more breadth. The Batjac or Wayne-Fellows arrangements with WB and Republic may be a little different, or more clever, as the Wayne groups at that point, prior to The Alamo, only used corporate monies.
The Louis Hayward-Ulmer projects all had a different genesis. The Strange Woman was a personal production of Hedy Lamarr. It was successful, via UA, and she quickly cross collateralized it with her next film, Dishonored Lady, which did not do well. She lost a bundle.
Ruthless was produced by Arthur Lyons, Louis Hayward’s agent and set up at Eagle Lion with Zachary Scott heading the cast. They determined, just prior to production that another, and stronger name was required, but there was no money, and Louis stepped in on a deferment basis so that the film could go forward. I don’t know if this was a profitable enterprise, but Lyons never produced a second picture and Louis has to sue for his money, which he got three years later.
The Pirates of Capri was the first Italian-American co-production. The money was not in place but the production team was, and ultimately the financing followed. I do not know how well the film or its principals did, but Louis made just under $100,000.00.
All independent pictures. And there are dozens of them.
November 18th, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Barry,
Ironic, because RUTHLESS was one of the examples I thought of using. Sorry Hayward had trouble getting his money, it was a damn good low budget CITIZEN KANE, and he and Scott were both fine in it.