The Scarlet Empress

Last week I presented the movie "The Rise of Catherine the Great" within the Winter of Fairbanks jr., and I mentioned planning to watch "The Scarlett Empress" from the same year - 1934 - with Marlene Dietrich to compare.
So that's what I did spontaneously on the weekend and now I'm trying to convey my feelings about that movie to you which is not going to be easy.

I wrote this in my post about "The Rise" (you'll forgive me for shortening the title from here on).
"It covers the time from when Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst arrives in Russia to marry Grand Duke Peter, nephew and heir of the childless Empress Elizabeth, to her taking the throne from her husband with the help of those officers devoted to her."
"The Scarlet Empress", however, begins with a short scene of Sophie as a child (Dietrich's own daughter) and a reference to the hangman which is followed by a sequence showing the torture and executions that happened in Russia before (very clearly pre-code!) before cutting to a playful and innocent teenaged Sophie on a swing in the garden.
A messenger, Count Alexei, arrives to take her to Russia for the wedding with Peter. When she asks him about Peter, he tells her that he's most handsome. During the trip, he lets her know he has fallen in love with her and kisses her.
When they come to Russia, Sophie is shocked to discover that Peter is mentally deficient and unstable (as mentioned in the other post, historians don't necessarily agree with that anymore) and not the handsome young man she has been promised. Empress Elizabeth expects her to be a faithful wife to her nephew and give Russia a male heir, nothing more.
Sophie - now called Catherine - starts to change from the innocent girl into a confident women. Disappointed by Alexei whom she avoids after she discovers him to be Elizabeth's lover, she begins taking other lovers. Peter also has a lover of his own who hopes he will marry her once Elizabeth has died and Catherine has got rid of.
After Elizabeth's death, Peter places Catherine under house arrest and spreads the rumor that she's dying, but her lover Orlov and her loyal troops help her to escape and start the coup during which Orlov kills Peter - making Catherine the new Empress.

Like "The Rise" this movie is not a history lesson.
What is it, though, and why did I say in the introduction that it wouldn't be easy to tell you my opinion about the movie? One word - OVERWHELMED. Yes, in big letters.

This movie was very different from "The Rise".
Let's start with the set because it starred at least as much as Dietrich did, if not more.
It is absolutely bizarre, over the top, dark, and grotesque. A lot of people are fascinated by it, call it beautiful, striking, but to me it was mostly very distracting.
I couldn't help it, it felt like I, instead of listening to the people, mostly stared at the distorted orthodox icons on the huge doors and even more at the sculptures that were simply everywhere, some smaller, some hugely towering over the humans, holding slim, long candles, yes, even making up the throne.

Nothing against an elaborate set and I even understand people being fascinated it, but I easily get claustrophobic which is a real problem at times for me personally and therefore it was way too much for me.
It was the same with the costumes, they all seemed to be huge, all the fur, the skirts, the jewelry; I guess they were meant to show the decadence of the upper classes opposed to the situation of the peasants.
Some of Dietrich's outfits were really wild.
Not that it mattered much, though, because the dialog seemed to take second place after the visuals, anyway.
Actually, there were a lot of passages that reminded more of a silent movie with the music transporting the mood of the situation, playful or very dramatic. Sometimes a scene felt endless and needlessly repetitive, too. Having intertitles enhanced the feeling of a silent movie.

Now how does Dietrich in this movie compare to Bergner in "The Rise"?
I didn't care much for the portrayal of innocent Sophie. Maybe it's something I couldn't imagine Dietrich to do, I don't know, but I didn't buy it from her any more than from Bergner, eyes wide open, whispering, breathless.
In the second part of the movie, however, as the confident and seductive - lots of play with symbols here - Catherine who is ready to do anything to stand her ground at court, Dietrich is more in her element and a lot better than Bergner in my opinion. She is also always center stage, a shining light on a dark and grotesque stage. In the end, she rides right up to the throne on a white horse, dressed in a white version of a military uniform.
"There is no Emperor, there is only an Empress."

That brings us to the Emperor.
I said that Fairbanks jr. seemed more spoilt than really crazy in "The Rise" and I very much preferred that.
There were moments when Jaffe's madness was creepy, but most of the time he just grinned with eyes wide open and turning his head back and forth, and it made me think a lot of the way he played Gunga Din who was not crazy. In fact, that too had a silent movie vibe to me, but not in a good way. It soon started to annoy me more than creep me out.

I did like Dresser as Elizabeth, but I liked Robson a lot better. Other than Robson, Dresser didn't seem as much an Empress to me as a matriarch who wanted to keep the household running by demanding a male heir for Russia and not tolerating anything preventing it.

Count Alexei, hm. He was not quite as seductive to me as he was probably meant to be.

All in all, I think "The Scarlet Empress" is better than "The Rise", and I'm glad I watched it as it was definitely an interesting experience, but to be honest, I wouldn't put either on my re-watch list for very different reasons.
I can't help not getting over the set and believe me, the picture above is just a tiny glimpse into it.

I guess you'll just have to watch and judge the movie for yourself. If you do, I'd love to hear what you think.