![]() |
by William M. Drew |
A titan of the early Russian cinema, Evgenii
Bauer was born in Russia in 1865. His father was a renowned zither-player,
while his sisters became actresses. Bauer graduated from the Moscow Institute
of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. Over the years, he was an amateur
actor, a caricaturist for magazines, a newspaper satirist, a theatrical
impresario, and an artistic photographer. He was especially recognized
for designing sets for theatrical productions, a talent that eventually
brought him into the cinema when he designed the sets for Drankov and Taldykin’s
commemorative historical film, Trekhsotletie Tsarstvovaniya Doma Romanovykh
(The
Tercentenary of the Rule of the Romanov Dynasty), released in 1913. Encouraged
by Drankov ![]() Among his comedies were several starring his wife Lina Ancharova, whom he had met when she was a dancer in one of the theatre groups that employed him. She demonstrated genuine talent as a comedienne in her films for Bauer. In Tysiacha v toraia khitrost’ (The 1002nd Ruse), filmed in 1915, she plays a flirtatious wife who successfully outwits her husband’s attempts to thwart her infidelities by hiding her lover in the closet. Lina Bauer’s delightful facial expressions and roguish, knowing manner perfectly matched the mood of this well-crafted bedroom farce.
However, it is in the fields of social dramas and tragedies involving psychological obsessions that Bauer reached his peak. These brooding works seemed to strike deep chords in Russian culture and offer penetrating insights into the mood of late imperial Russia. One of the earliest of these films, Sumyerki Zhyentsina Dusha (Twilight of a Woman’s Soul), made in 1913, straddled these genres and is permeated with the melancholy despair of the time. It concerns a noblewoman who tries to break from her idle class by helping the poor and unfortunate. She is attracted to a handsome laborer who rapes her when she visits his slum dwelling. Defending herself, she kills him but is rejected by her fiancé, a prince, when she tells him of the incident. Later, she becomes an opera star but refuses to reconcile with the prince. Experimenting with lighting and design to develop his narrative, Bauer uses this film to comment on the gulf between the classes while exploring the psychology of his tormented heroine. Bauer’s dramas of social realism include Ditya Bol’shogo Goroda (A Child of the Big City) (1914), Nemye Svideteli (Silent Witnesses) (1914), and Leon Drey (1915). Ditya Bol’shogo Goroda’s female protagonist is a young woman whose soul has been tainted by grinding poverty. Orphaned from birth and toiling in a sweatshop, she escapes when a wealthy young man falls in love with her and makes her his mistress. But once his money runs out, she leaves him, spurning his suggestion that they live a modest life together. In the end, she has climbed her way to the top. When her former lover shoots himself on the doorstep of her mansion, she steps over him on her way to a fashionable restaurant, the final shot being a close-up of his body. In Nemye Svideteli, it is the callousness of the aristocracy that is exposed. The story relates the seduction of a maid by a wealthy idler in an upper class household who abandons her when he renews his relationship with a society woman. Leon Drey is concerned with an attractive Jewish man who uses his charms to advance in society. This vein of social comment also appears in Bauer’s lavish 1916 drama of high life, Zhizn’ za Zhizn’ (A Life for a Life). Although based on a French novel by Georges Ohnet, the film, adapted to a Russian setting, perfectly conveys the decadence of the late Tsarist era. A fortune-hunting prince marries the wealthy daughter of a female industrialist while carrying on an affair with his wife’s foster sister who is married to a businessman she does not love. After spending much of his wife’s money, he forges promissory notes and is about to be arrested when his mother-in-law shoots him.
Despite Bauer’s incorporation of theatrical techniques into his films, his style and those of other pre-Revolutionary Russian filmmakers like Yakov Protazanov were uniquely cinematic in contrast to such stagy early features as Sarah Bernhardt’s 1912 Queen Elizabeth. At the same time, Bauer’s work was distinctly different in tempo from his American contemporaries. In his Biograph years, Griffith was in the forefront of those who sought to break with the first primitive narrative films by positioning the camera closer to the actors for a new cinematic and naturalistic style of performance. Russia’s pre-Revolutionary filmmakers like Bauer built on Griffith’s early Biograph experiments to create an alternative cinema of their own with a slower pace of acting and editing as they explored in depth the tortured psychology of their characters and the decadent social milieu. Bauer effectively used cutting within scenes and striking close-ups throughout his career but always within the context of a style that placed primary emphasis on detailed mise-en-scène and measured performance rather than the blending of rhythmic, dramatic editing with dynamic acting characteristic of Griffith’s films. At the beginning of 1917, Bauer was at the top of Russia’s film world. He was earning the extraordinary salary of 40,000 rubles and was a major shareholder in the Khanzhonkov company. In the spring, he went to the Crimea to shoot on location and oversee a new studio planned by his company. Bauer intended to act the part of a lame artist in a forthcoming film--one he was destined never to make. While practicing his limp near Yalta, he slipped and fell from an embankment onto the shore, breaking his leg. Despite being confined to a hospital bed, he was brought out to the set to direct Za Shchast’em (For Happiness), the tragic story of a frail girl who falls in love with an attorney. Unknown to her, the man is courting her widowed mother. When the girl learns the truth about the relationship and that she can never marry him, she is so overcome with despair that she loses her sight. Under Bauer’s sensitive direction, the acting in this scene is heartbreaking in its poignancy. The melancholy beauty of Za Shchast’em seems to convey a foreboding of Bauer’s own imminent fate. After completing the film, he began work on Korol Parizha (The King of Paris), but when his bedridden condition caused him to develop pneumonia, the direction was taken over by the actress Olga Rakhmanova. On June 9, 1917, by the traditional Russian calendar (June 22 in the West), Evgenii Bauer died of his illness at the age of 52. Upon the news of his passing, the Russian film journals of the period published many tributes to the prolific artist who had directed 82 films in four years, becoming Russia’s most renowned director. But a few months after his death, a second, far more radical revolution began sweeping away the remnants of the old society whose agonizing decline Bauer had so powerfully chronicled in his works. The emerging Soviet cinema sought other cinematic models more in keeping with the revolutionary fervor of the new epoch. Ironically, the films produced by the Soviet Union’s capitalist rival, the United States, with their rapid editing style and usually positive outlook on life, seemed a more appropriate example than the despairing, often mystical filmic narratives made during the old regime. While Bauer’s mastery of cinema left its mark on those of his co-workers, Lev Kuleshov, an actor and art director on Za Shchast’em, and Ivan Perestiani, both of whom continued on as directors in the Soviet era, for the most part, Bauer and the pre-Revolutionary Russian cinema were identified with the former Tsarist period. In the 1920s, with the exciting new Soviet silent montage classics introducing a style that was the diametric opposite of Bauer’s, the earlier artist’s work was largely forgotten. During the succeeding Stalinist era, Bauer’s work was even more out of step with the prevailing trends. His depiction of a societal corruption that warped members of all classes from the highest to the lowest would have been inherently anathema to a regime promulgating the heroic style of "Socialist Realism" celebrating peasants, proletariats, and national leaders as paragons of virtue. Similarly, Bauer’s exploration of disturbed psyches was far removed from an official policy which despised introspection, denounced Freud, and banned the second part of Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, the most Baueresque of the later Russian master’s works in its dark mood and emphasis on psychology. In the late 1980s, with the collapse of the Soviet system, the surviving works of Bauer, carefully preserved in the Soviet archives, emerged from 70 years of obscurity to be shown internationally, becoming at last part of world film culture. Few if any of his films had ever reached the West where he was little more than a name. Seen anew, his works embody the spirit of an age, vividly capturing the twilight of imperial Russia. But beyond the manners and mores of his time, Evgenii Bauer, now recognized as one of the early cinema’s most creative directors, continues to speak to the human condition with his uncompromising dissections of social inequities and haunting portrayals of twisted psyches in masterpieces which helped the young medium develop into a mature art. REFERENCES: David Robinson, "Evgeni Bauer and the Cinema of Nikolai
II," Sight and Sound, Winter 1989-90; Yuri Tsivian, Silent Witnesses:
Russian Films 1908-1919, British Film Institute; Rob Bridgett, "The
Thematic and Stylistic Unity Inherent in the Films of Evgenii Bauer;" Richard
Stites, "Dusky Images of Tsarist Russia: Prerevolutionary Cinema," The
Russian Review, vol. 53, April 1994.
RELATED LINK: Milestone Film and Video sells video cassettes of silents by Bauer and
other early Russian filmmakers: Copyright © 2002 by William M. Drew. All rights reserved. |
This site is intended for educational purposes
only.
[home | top of the page]