DIETRICH SHORN OF HER GLAMOUR

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 13, 30 January 1937, Page 13

DIETRICH SHORN OF HER GLAMOUR

Marlene Dietrich is one of the most interesting problems 1 have ever had to deal with, writes Jacques Feyder, film director, When I arrived in England to make "Knight Without Armour" I knew more about her than does the average fiim-goer. I had seen her in "Tlie Blue Aixgel," "Desire," and several other of her American x>ictures, but I did not know anything about the capabilities or mental make-up of the woman I was about to direct. In all her American fiims, with the exception of "Desire," Dietrich had played the part of a temptress. I kne,w that she could do this extremely well, I knew that she wa3 glamourous ; and 1 knew, if only because of the endless close-ups which Josef Von Sternberg lias given us of her face and figure, that she was extravagantly beautiful. There was anofher thing I knew about her; that, in "Desire," she had played a comedy role with apparent (listinction. But then, Lubitsch was producer, and Lubitsch can make atraost any actor or actress appear good. Her work xn Sternberg's pictures had all been set in one low atmospheric keyj reminiscent of her role in "The Bl'ue Angel." He part in the Lubitsch film was pitched in a fairly high, satirical treble. She had never been allowed to to-uch on the thousands of emotions which lay between these two distinct keys. I had a shrewd snspicion that, in different hands, Marlene might prove a sensitive instrument capable of a whole symphony of acting; but Von Sternberg and Lubitsch had both been so eager to express their own ideas, and so intent on taking close-ups of her lovely f-ace that they had never given her a* cliance. to display the full range of her ability. c. I well remember our first meeting. Dietrich had just arriVed and was surrounded by newspaper men. She sat in her hotel suite looking magnificexitly, irritatingly beautiful, saying '.'yes" and "no" to the myriads of questions being put to her. She can be sublimely dumb when she likes. When the reporters had departed we sat down in a corner and tried to sum one another up. For a time our Conversation was excessively polite. She was, she said, glad to be in oue of my productions. I said how glad I was to have her, and so on Latei*, she -gradually dropped her "press" face and I began to glimpse Dietrich — a' riclily human and intellxgent woman with a strong masculine streak, who had grown a little jvcary of five years o.f continued adulation.\ Yet this side of Dietrich had never been seen in a film. In an effort to preserve her glamour her American producers had deci'eed that she must xxot even smile xiaturally on tho screen. I saw a good deal of Marlene during the . next few days ; and the more I saw of her the bdtier I liked her. I ceased to consider her glamorous. I perceived beneath the superficial shell which the newspapers and publicity men had built np around ber an amiable kausfrau who was far too human and intelligent to he anything .as unaesthetic as a temptress. It was thenT decided what to do. I would deglamorise jthe Dietrich. I .would strip her of her synthetic attraction and give the world a picture of the real woman. In the early sequences of the film I have shown her in a role typical of all those she has ever played, as a glamorous and wealthy Russian countess; a woman to whom all Europe was a playground. Then comes the revolution. The countess finds that, in the new world of communism and concrete, there is no place for a woman of her kind. She is forced to leave her jewels and riches behind her and fly for her life. Her fine clothes turn to rags. From that point the story . develops into a rich human drama. Poverty gives her a proper sense of values, and for the first time she really begins to feel things. I -have designed the picture so as to give Marlene an opportuxxity to express every emotion of which she is capable, After the first few sequences I have permitted no close-ups to interfere with the trend of the drama. The story is powerful, and full of action, but it must succeed — or fall — on the strengtb of Marlene's characterisation. I employed much the same policy • when 1 directed Garbo in "The TCisa". 1 had always felt that her produoers had never given hep sufficient scope. Hollywood has created a . number of stock expressions for every emotion. Such-and-such a glance means love. Another gesture means hatred, and so on. Garbo, like . many "other stars had been forced to employ these cinematic cliches, with the result that (in my opinion) she had never given a perfectiy natural- performance. In "The Kiss" I gave Garbo a part vibrant with every feminine erotion, and then asked her to make the characterisation as natural as she could. The result was that she gave a performance lieralded by many as the best of her career. Dietrich liag also su ffered from this cliche treatment. It is a sixi to drive actresses like her and Garbo down these banal channels of expression, when they are capable 0f ( reating something new with every performance.