DbcultAccessing Vault...
7.8/10
Senior Film Conservator
A definitive 7.8/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. Are You There? remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
So, 'Are You There?' from 1930. 🎬 Is it worth digging up? Honestly, not for everyone. If you’re into early sound films, the kind where you can almost hear the microphones rustling, or if you just love watching Olga Baclanova do her thing, then yes, maybe. But if you need snappy dialogue or a plot that moves at, well, *any* kind of modern pace, you might find yourself checking your watch. It’s a very particular kind of slow burn.
The film just kind of… unfolds. There isn't this big, driving narrative, more like a series of sketches. It’s less a story and more a collection of people existing, sometimes awkwardly, on screen. Harlan Thompson, the writer, seemed to be exploring a mood rather than a mystery.
One thing that sticks with you is the sound design – or the *lack* of it. The silences are often so heavy, they become characters themselves. There’s a scene where Beatrice Lillie's character is just, she’s trying to say something important, but the background noise just… drops out. It creates this _really_ odd, almost theatrical effect. Was it intentional? Hard to tell, but it makes you lean in.
And then there’s Gustav von Seyffertitz. He’s always got that intense look, even when he’s just sitting there, stirring a teacup. There’s a moment, a close-up, where his eyes just dart across the room. It’s *so* quick, you barely catch it. But it tells you more about whatever his character is thinking than a whole page of dialogue might. He's good at that.
The pacing, oh boy. It’s like everyone is moving through treacle. The scene with Donald Reed and Jillian Sand, where they’re supposed to be having this big, emotional argument? It goes on for what feels like an eternity. The camera just sits there, mostly, while they deliver lines that would feel fast in a stage play. You start to feel uncomfortable for them. It’s not bad acting, just a different rhythm altogether.
I found myself focusing on little details. Like, the way a hat is placed on a table. Or a particular curtain pattern in one of the sets. They don’t really *mean* anything in the grand scheme, but they give the film a kind of texture. A real, tangible feeling, you know? Like someone actually lived in those rooms.
And Olga Baclanova! She’s magnetic, even in a role that doesn't ask much of her. There’s a particular shot where she just smiles, a really subtle, almost melancholic smile. It’s not a big, Hollywood grin. It’s tiny. And you just know there’s a whole world of thought behind it. Her presence elevates any scene she's in, even if the plot around her is kinda… thin.
The film's title, 'Are You There?', it really starts to feel less like a question and more like a sigh by the end. Everyone seems to be searching for some kind of connection, but they keep missing each other. It's subtle, _sometimes a little too subtle_ for its own good.
There are these small bits of humor, too, often from Beatrice Lillie. Her delivery of what should be a throwaway line about a lost umbrella actually got a chuckle out of me. It’s a nice break from the generally subdued mood. Her timing is just *spot on*, even in this clunky early talkie.
The crowd scenes, there aren't many, but the ones they have feel a bit… sparse. Like they only had a few extras and just kept moving them around. It gives a strange, almost dreamlike quality to the background, but not in a way that feels intentional. More like, "we worked with what we had."
Is it a classic? Probably not. Is it interesting? For a certain kind of viewer, definitely. It's a peek into a different era of filmmaking, a time when they were still figuring out how to make movies talk. It’s got a charm, a quiet persistence. You might forget the plot, but those little moments, like Baclanova’s smile or Gustav von Seyffertitz’s quick glance, they kinda stick with you. 💭
IMDb 4.7
1914
Community
Log in to comment.
